Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Tourism

Mr. Grist: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends holding a meeting with the chairman of the tourist board for Wales to discuss problems with tourism.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend frequently meets the chairman of the Wales tourist board. The next occasion will be on Monday 15 July.

Mr. Grist: May I urge my right hon. Friend on that occasion, and on others when suitable, to support the chairman's efforts vastly to improve the number, availability, cleanliness and visibility of public conveniences, the lack of which is a public disgrace?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I know that my hon. Friend has had correspondence on this subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will know that under the Public Health Act 1936, responsibility lies with local authorities which have the discretion about where and when to provide these facilities. We are certainly prepared to take the matter up with the chairman of the tourist board.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Why is the Wales tourist board denied the right to advertise Wales, its people, culture and scenic beauty independently overseas?

Sir Wyn Roberts: That was considered, but the hon. Gentleman will know that prime responsibility for attracting visitors to Britain lies with the British Tourist Authority. The Wales tourist board works closely with the BTA, and a report was recently commissioned on how the whole operation could be improved. I am glad to say that the report has now been received and that it envisages progress being made over the next three years. We should not underestimate the benefit that we get from using BTA facilities overseas.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that visitors are being sent to Scotland, London, Oxford and Stratford, but have never heard of Wales? Under the present arrangements they are never likely to.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he visits any BTA offices abroad, he will see that Wales

is prominently presented. Of course, there is no accounting for foreigners' ignorance of Wales or of any other part of the United Kingdom.

Further Education for the Deaf

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of further education for the deaf in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Twenty-one colleges of further education in Wales make provision for students with special needs, including partially or profoundly deaf students. During the 1989–90 session, 35 students with a specific hearing impairment were studying in Welsh colleges.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that places for the deaf at colleges of further education must be backed by a team of professionals who can cater for the full range of communication and linguistic needs of their students, and that even that is no substitute for a college that caters specifically for the deaf within a supportive and signing environment, such as Doncaster college for the deaf?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, under grants for education support and training, funds are available to meet the cost of in-service training for further education staff who teach students with special educational needs, including deaf students. Some £50,000 is available for this purpose in the current financial year, and further support will be available in 1992–93. Our White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" states that the new further education funding council will be placed under a duty to secure provision for students with special educational needs.

Mr. Win Griffiths: May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the money available at colleges of further education to cater properly for deaf students and other students with special educational needs is totally inadequate? There are cases at the college of technology in Bridgend where it looks as though students will be unable to benefit from the courses, simply because of the additional expense of making sure that they can take the courses. I ask the Minister to look into this matter urgently and to provide the money needed.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Mid Glamorgan certainly takes a substantial share of that £50,000—£11,150 to be precise. I must stress the reply that I gave: 21 out of the 31 colleges of further education provide for students with special educational needs.

Defective Housing

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Swansea city council and tenants on the nature of the tenancy and rent levels following the redevelopment of pre-cast reinforced concrete houses in Blaenymaes-Portmead and Clase estates in the city.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): These are matters for consultation between Swansea city council and the tenants.

Mr. Anderson: The Under-Secretary of State will know that the tenants were most grateful to the Secretary of State for his readiness to see them this morning. However, they were intensely dissapointed by the lack of specific financial commitments and the apparent unwillingness to recognise the urgency and exceptional nature of the problem that faces the city. Tenants in Orlit houses are seeing their houses crumbling around them and regard them as a fire risk. Will the Under-Secretary of State consult Tai Cymru to make sure that rents are not pitched at such a level that tenancies are effectively available only to those on housing benefit? Will he also devise a formula so that the land that the city council is giving free to Tai Cymru can be taken into account in reducing rents to levels that can be afforded?

Mr. Bennett: Housing associations have a policy of setting affordable rents. It is for the housing benefit system to deal with people who are in need. Therefore, I do not accept that we ought to adjust housing association grants in this respect.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that the policy that he prefers means that for the next four or five years all the new housing that might be built by Tai Cymru in Swansea will be used not to reduce the housing list queue, but to provide homes for those who live in houses that will have to be demolished? In that context, and in view of the length of the housing list, does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that this, in Swansea terms, is a housing disaster which requires special financial provision?

Mr. Bennett: As I said in answer to questions at the last but one Question Time, we gave Swansea city council all that it asked for when it came to Orlit houses. I said at the time that we would sympathetically consider in coming years any further requests that were made. This year Tai Cymru is giving £9 million towards housing in Swansea. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we had a meeting about that this morning. We shall write to him further on the subject.

Hospital Reorganisation

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss hospital reorganisations.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We have no plans at present to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss this matter.

Mr. Morgan: Now that the South Glamorgan health authority seems, on the quiet, to have dropped its proposals for a £70 million third district general hospital in South Glamorgan, what influence will that have on the Minister's decision regarding the proposal to expand the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, in my constituency which, if it were given half a chance by the Minister, would eliminate the waiting list for artificial knees and hips, and carry out up to 1,000 operations a year for the very small capital expenditure of £ 160,000, instead of the 250 operations that it carries out now?

Mr. Bennett: I understand that the South Glamorgan health authority is reviewing the need for a third district hospital, but that it has not yet come to a decision. I shall make decisions on treatment centres and other matters in the light of that decision, when it is made.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does not the Under-Secretary of State accept my hon. Friend's contention that it is a disgrace that the specialist treatment centre at Rhydlafar hospital has already used up its quota for knee operations this year? It is also close to its limit of 160 hip replacements per year. Is not there a desperate need for extra funding, so that the number of operations performed there can be increased, to make that a superb regional orthopaedic centre?

Mr. Bennett: I am always interested in improving the productivity of treatment centres and I am happy at the way that they have functioned. They have reached the target set for them. Clearly, we shall have to consider future allocations of waiting list money, but I can give no guarantee about that aspect at present. It is for district health authorities to reach agreement with treatment centres on the number of patients that are treated at any particular centre.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is it not desirable, in general terms and particularly in respect of the issue in question, to deal in facts? Can my hon. Friend say how much health spending increased in South Glamorgan over the past 10 or 12 years and what that has meant for improving the quality of patient care?

Mr. Bennett: In 1979, South Glamorgan health authority received in cash terms £59 million, compared with £180 million this year. That represents a 30 per cent. increase in real terms, after taking inflation into account. As to figures for the Welsh health service, there has been a 36 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated, a 29 per cent. increase in out-patients and a 200 per cent. increase in day surgery. Under the Labour Government, the number of out-patients fell.

Patient Care Targets

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the patient care targets which he has given to the health service in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: After consultation with directors of public health medicine, preliminary targets of each of our 10 health gain priority areas have been issued to the service to inform the development of local strategies for health.

Mr. Michael: Will not the Under-Secretary of State accept something that is obvious to everyone else in the health service—that the Government are not setting targets but merely describing health changes predicted in the normal course of events, without providing any new resources or fresh initiatives? Will he face the fact that the way to set and to meet real and meaningful improved health targets in Wales is in partnership with doctors, nurses, health visitors, community health councils and everyone else involved? Will he, as a first step, withdraw the Government's divisive plans for hospital opt-outs and end the crazy experiment in creating a so-called market for health care in Wales?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is the last person still to believe that anything in the reforms is about hospitals opting out. They do not; they remain NHS trust hospitals, paid for out of the generality of taxation and free at the point of service to patients.

Mr. Barry Jones: Nonsense.

Mr. Bennett: There is no use the hon. Gentleman shouting "Nonsense". Those facts are enshrined in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman runs down the excellent work done by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the strategies, which were formulated in consultation with all the people working in the health service. It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff. South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) questioning the targets. The first of them has already been reached, but as one goes further and further, such as when dealing with cancer treatment, it becomes more difficult to deal with intractable cases.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that the difference in waiting times as between NHS patients and those who are treated privately—often by the same specialist offering to provide identical treatment in a fraction of the waiting time—is unacceptable? Should not the Welsh Office set itself the target of eliminating that disparity?

Mr. Bennett: I certainly want waiting times to shorten and waiting lists to be reduced. I am grateful that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs examined the question of elective surgery. As part of my evidence to that Committee, I said that I had visited the five hospitals with the worst waiting lists, which between them account for nearly 50 per cent. of the waiting lists in Wales. My officials are currently preparing further information on how we might tackle that situation.

Cardiff Bay Redevelopment

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the potential number of jobs to be created as a result of the redevelopment of Cardiff bay.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): It is estimated that if the proposed barrage is constructed, a total of 30,000 jobs will be created over a 15 to 20 year period.

Mr. Butler: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show the project's tremendous potential for Cardiff and, despite the opposition of some Labour Members, for the valley communities?

Mr. Hunt: It is a vital project and I am concerned that there is as yet no unified approach to it among Opposition Members. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledge that the barrage is a major flagship project for our capital city of Cardiff, and one which would put us firmly on the world map.

Mr. Denzil Davies: What percentage of those 30,000 jobs will be in the non-productive service sector and what percentage will be in the wealth-creating manufacturing sector?

Mr. Hunt: I cannot predict exactly how those jobs will divide up. I referred to an estimate. Not one of the people

to whom I have spoken who have studied the project's job potential disputes the total of 30,000 jobs or the fact that this is a marvellous project for Wales.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a spectacular own goal for the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to seek to block the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and stop the creation of those 30,000 jobs, some of which could have been created already if the Bill had made progress as planned?

Mr. Morgan: Ask my constituents.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position, "Ask my constituents". I hope that everyone who represents our capital city of Cardiff will recognise the project's tremendous potential for Wales, particularly for Cardiff. It is about time that people studied the detailed assurances that have been given. Whenever I have referred to that project, I have said that it will go ahead provided that there is a satisfactory outcome to the groundwater studies. I repeat those words today.

Rural Aid

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on rural aid in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: I announced the allocation of £5 million to 36 special rural projects on 19 June. I shall now be considering how best to proceed with rural strategy by publishing my objectives.

Mr. Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman publishes his objectives, I hope that he will explain why £400,000 of the £5 million, about which he bragged to the Welsh Grand Committee on 19 June, is being spent in inner-city Bangor on a floodlit plain? Will he explain whether and, I hope, deny that that has anything to do with the fact that the area is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)?

Mr. Hunt: I am appalled at that comment. It is a libel on the people of Bangor. The project was put forward not by Ministers but by the local authority on behalf of local communities. All the projects that came before me were important and of direct benefit to rural areas. On that basis, therefore, I confess that I found selection difficult. I congratulate everyone concerned on drawing up those imaginative and innovative projects.

Mr. Livsey: Given that only about 36 out of nearly 250 applications in central Wales have been approved, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, such is the crisis in agriculture—with farm incomes at their lowest since the war—he should consider introducing legislation to ensure that the Development Board for Rural Wales brings agriculture within its remit?

Mr. Hunt: Last month I prefaced my announcement with the promise that I would find £5 million, and I fulfilled my undertaking. I agree that there were many exciting projects. In considering the objectives of the rural strategy, I shall wish to think about how best to take the matter forward in the light of some exciting schemes which are still to be put into effect. As the hon. Gentleman


knows, agriculture is a matter for the Welsh Agriculture Department. Welsh Office Ministers answer on agriculture matters.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member to put his question. Get on with it, please.

Mr. Rogers: I shall do so, if my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will stop spluttering.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the sums that will be available to help the rural economy of Wales will be greatly affected by the hundreds of millions of pounds that will be poured into the development of a barrage in the Cardiff bay system? [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those who live in rural areas and those of us who live in the valley communities completely support the principle of the Cardiff bay development? Our only objection is to wasteful expenditure on a barrage that will not create one extra foot of land or one extra job in Cardiff.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, his comments are a bit wide of the question, but we had better hear an answer from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hunt: I have been waiting with great anticipation. I strongly support rural Rhondda's claim to put forward views on rural policy. However, I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the project proposed for Cardiff will not only do much to sustain Cardiff into the next century, but will be a tremendous fillip for the whole of Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: All of us want to build a sound economy for rural Wales. I remind the Secretary of State that recruitment to Her Majesty's forces is one way in which the people of rural Wales can get employment and training. I want a commitment from him that he will fight hard for the Royal Welch Fusiliers even though he represents a Cheshire constituency. I want an unambiguous commitment that he will fight for the Royal Welch Fusiliers to remain a free-standing regiment.

Mr. Hunt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to respond to that question. First, I represent not a Cheshire constituency, but a Merseyside constituency which has nothing to do with this subject. Secondly, as soon as I returned from north America, I contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the future regimental structure of the Army. The Minister of State kept in close touch with all Ministers at the Ministry of Defence in my absence. I was assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he had not yet received any specific proposals from the Army about reductions in the number of regiments. He assured me that no final decisions had been taken. He is aware that many people have extremely strong feelings about the future of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to influence his party's Front-Bench defence spokesman who recently said that there was no future for the regimental structure in the Army.

ICI

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet representatives of ICI in Wales to discuss Government assistance towards its future investment policy.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend met ICI representatives on 23 January when he visited the plant at Pontypool. We are always ready to discuss assistance towards any investment project which ICI may wish to put forward.

Mr. Murphy: The Minister of State is aware that more than 1,000 Welsh men and women work for ICI and that many thousands more are ICI pensioners, all of whom are deeply suspicious of a possible Hanson bid for ICI. As the Secretary of State has been untypically silent about what should happen about the bid—as he is again today—does not the Minister think that either he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should make a statement in the House condemning such a bid, or do they both continue to play the role of Pontius Pilate while a vital aspect of Welsh industry is under threat from such a predator as Lord Hanson?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that no takeover bid for ICI has been made. It would be wholly inappropriate to make a statement about a hypothetical situation. The hon. Gentleman referred to pensioners, and that issue is very much a matter for the trustee company and its directors who administer the fund under the trust deed. On 3 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry replied extremely well to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), and I can add nothing to what he said then.

Unemployment

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about a change in the level of unemployment during the last year (a) in Pontypridd and (b) Wales as a whole.

Mr. David Hunt: 772 and 29,043 respectively.

Dr. Howells: In view of the Secretary of State's habit these days of claiming credit for just about every job created in Wales, including the appointment of a rat catcher in "Under Milk Wood", does he realise that there is a great deal of suspicion about today's announcement that 15 jobs are to be created in my constituency in a chlorofluorocarbon refrigeration recovery plant? There is a general suspicion that Wales is being regarded increasingly by other countries as a convenient place to which their poisons can be shipped and in which they can be treated and dumped.

Mr. Hunt: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in this context. I should have thought that he would welcome the £2·6 million investment in his area. It is an exciting development which will help to stem the escape into the environment of potentially damaging gases. The protection of our environment has never been as important as it is today and I am delighted that the project, for reclaiming packaging and distributing refrigerant gases, will create new jobs in the area.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Fabian Society and with such leading trade unionists as Gavin Laird and Eric Hammond that the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage would be disastrous for employment in the United Kingdom, including the Principality? Does he further agree that the introduction of such a statutory minimum wage could destroy as many as 55,000 jobs in the Principality, including 1,400 in my constituency?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important subject about which the Opposition have been distinctly silent. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of disquiet about Labour's proposals for the statutory minimum wage and there is evidence to show that it would bear unduly harshly on the Principality. My hon. Friend's figure of 55,000 jobs is probably an underestimate. I shall bring my estimate of the losses, which will probably be higher, before the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that this has been an extremely difficult year for young people in particular to obtain employment. In fact, if the evidence of local technical colleges and other colleges of further education is taken into account, it is the worst year for five years. Is not this, therefore, another opportunity for us to consider how we educate and train our young people? The Secretary of State knows that I have made strong representations to ensure that the whole responsibility for education and training is transferred to the Welsh Office. Will he consider that again?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is precisely the moment at which we should look carefully at our education and training policies to ensure that we give every possible job opportunity to people and especially to the younger members of the Principality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give credit to the training and enterprise councils. The first network was set up in the Principality, ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is addressing the matter in practical terms and I strongly support its efforts.

Mr. Rowlands: If the past 12 years have seen such an economic miracle in Wales, why are the Government still having to squeeze out inflation by destroying more and more jobs in our economy, especially as our communities could scarcely be said to be enjoying high wages or making high wage demands? We are the lowest wage economy. If low wages mean more jobs, we should have many more jobs than we have at present.

Mr. Hunt: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are more people in employment now than there were in 1979. He sometimes forgets that statistic. We in the Principality cannot isolate ourselves from the recession elsewhere in the world. I have recently returned from north America. The United States is in its 10th successive month of recession and Canada has just completed a 14-month period in recession. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the difficulties are unique to Wales or to the United Kingdom. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

Mr. Barry Jones: Those answers will not reassure Welsh business men who see the economy lurching downwards. Is not it time for an immediate cut in interest rates to stem what is becoming a frightening recession? Does the Secretary of State agree that Wales needs interest

rate cuts, investment in our schools, investment in training and investment in industry so that we can have real jobs to face the challenge of the next century?

Mr. Hunt: Sometimes I wish that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that although we have serious difficulties in Wales with the recession, the medium to longer-term prospects for our Principality are still as good as ever. I am sorry that he did not welcome the package of £33 million of investment which I announced today. Fourteen separate industrial projects will create 300 new jobs and will safeguard many more. That is further good news for the Welsh economy and the sheer size of the investment demonstrates clearly that international and home-grown companies in Wales are confidently committing themselves to a better future.

Welsh Assembly

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with whom he consulted, and over what period of time, before concluding that there is no case for an elected Welsh assembly; and whether he will consider any further representations that any all-Wales forum should have some directly elected component.

Mr. David Hunt: My discussions with the local authority associations began in January. I have received a number of representations since then which I have been considering. The hon. Gentleman will know the conclusions that I have reached. With regard to any further representations, I hope that he will accept that I have not tried to stop him making representations to me.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that answer. I assure the Secretary of State that I would make any representations that I felt were appropriate. Does not he consider it very odd that when £5,000 million is spent by the Welsh Office, when there are 70 or 80 quangos and when he appoints 1,200 people to nominated bodies, we do not have any directly answerable structure in Wales? When will there be an end to the Secretary of State's role as governor-general? When will we have what every other country has—elected democracy?

Mr. Hunt: The fact that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question and that I must stand here in the mother of Parliaments and answer it shows that I am democratically accountable for what happens in Wales. With regard to the assembly, I must confess that I considered it very carefully. There is a very wide range of proposals. However, none of them explains satisfactorily what would happen to the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. There is a deep suspicion that if Labour's proposals were implemented —the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) may or may not support them—that all-important seat in the Cabinet might be denied to Wales.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the calls from the Opposition Benches for a Welsh assembly and for a guided economy and the opposition to service industries are reminiscent of the 1970s and show that the Opposition parties have learnt absolutely nothing during their period in opposition? Should not they learn some lessons in the future?

Mr. Hunt: They certainly have not learnt the lesson of the referendum in 1979 when the people of Wales rejected


the concept of an elected assembly by a four to one majority. I agree with my hon. Friend: the Opposition do not learn the lessons. People do not want to return to the policies of the 1970s and to that shabby Labour Government who were propped up by an equally shabby Lib-Lab pact. They do not want to return to socialism at a time when the USSR is removing the word socialist from its title and the rest of central and eastern Europe is throwing off socialism. It is remarkable that the Labour party wants to return to just that.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is not there a more recent example of what the Secretary of State has just told us about? Is not the poll tax a better example for him to cite? The Government were trying desperately to hold a line against the overwhelming majority of public opinion and against the views of all the Opposition parties in Wales and a sizeable minority in the Conservative party. Given that the poll tax was ultimately swept away, will the Secretary of State be as consistent in opposing devolution as he was in advocating the poll tax?

Mr. Hunt: I certainly will not support a return—as the Labour party would have us return—to an unjust and inequitable domestic rating system and then to proceed to a revaluation. I strongly condemn the Labour party for failing to enter into consultations, unlike the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, on the future of local government structure, functions and finance. The door is still open and will always be open. It is about time that the Labour party valued the results of consultation.

Inward Investment

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of securing inward investment for Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: For inward investment, the 12 months ending March 1991 was a record year with 147 projects secured, promising 15,000 new and safeguarded jobs and an investment of £585 million.
I have recently returned from what I believe to have been a successful inward investment mission to north America, following which I was able to announce a further four projects. I expect a number of other projects to flow from the visit.

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend could be forgiven for being somewhat exasperated at the way in which, every time he announces good news, the Luddite left in the Opposition reacts most contemptuously to it. Is not this the opportunity to say that Wales has been very successful in securing inward investment? Would my right hon. Friend care to suggest why he and everybody else involved in securing that investment have been so successful?

Mr. Hunt: I suppose it is because Opposition Members are trying to make party political points that they do not recognise the important progress that has been made. Since January alone, I have been able to announce support by the Welsh Office for more than 4,500 new jobs and nearly £352 million of investment for the Principality. I believe that the figures represent not just our outstanding record in attracting investment and jobs from overseas, but the setting up and expansion of many home-grown

businesses. With the partnership that we have in Wales, I am confident that we will continue that winning record into the mid-1990s and beyond.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the public consultation process before an NHS hospital applies for and acquires trust status.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The requirements on public consultation are set out in section 5(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Local residents, health service staff involved and community interests would be consulted before any decision was taken.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that, in his constituency, Pembrokeshire health authority intends to carry out a leaflet drop to persuade people that a hospital trust is a good idea? Is not it improper for a health authority to pay for a leaflet drop that obviously has strong political connotations? Should not the money for that leaflet drop come from the coffers of the Conservative party or, better still, from the Minister?

Mr. Bennett: It is quite in order for a health authority to explain to the people who live in its area the proposals that it is making to become a national health service trust. Indeed, it is vital for it to do so, because in recent weeks there has been misleading publicity in the local paper. That publicity, which was produced by the Labour candidate for Pembroke and supplied by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), was incorrect and he had to apologise. The article was headed "Labour Apology for Health Chief', and related to information provided by the hon. Gentleman, which he leaked from a Select Committee hearing whose minutes have not been published.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Barristers' Investigations

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the scope of privilege enjoyed by barristers investigating alleged criminal behaviour on behalf of individuals or organisations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Legal professional privilege relating to the discharge by a lawyer of instructions received from his client exists for the protection of the client and forms part of the general law of evidence.

Mr. Dalyell: What discussion took place between the Certification Officer and Government officials before the decision was taken to prosecute Mr. Scargill, Mr. Heathfield and the National Union of Mineworkers last September? Was there or was there not collusion? Have the Government advised the Certification Officer, Matthew Wake, to appeal? Why do the Government allow the Treasury Solicitor to work for the Certification Officer when he is meant to be independent? What is the cost of the case? Why did the Government pass information to the sequestrator?

The Attorney-General: The Certification Officer is an entirely independent statutory office-holder for whom I have no ministerial responsibility whatsoever. The prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was brought by the Certification Officer in the exercise of his independent discretion. The Treasury Solicitor undertakes work for certain independent bodies and office-holders —for example, magistrates—and the staff are well aware of their obligation in that activity to exercise an independent professional judgment.
I am unable to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question for which, again, I have no responsibility. As to the cost of the case, I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment gave a written answer on that the other day.

Mr. Fraser: When judicial inquiries such as the Scarman or Woolf inquiries take place, neither the conclusions of the inquiry nor the evidence that is given to it are used as evidence of other offences against those giving the evidence—that is a matter of practice and sometimes a matter of law. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it might be wise of him to issue similar guidelines for inquiries that are carried out by, say, a trade union or a local authority so that the setting up of such internal inquiries is not discouraged, and to ensure that witnesses who give evidence to such inquiries are not later prosecuted?

The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I follow the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not for me to lay down guidelines about the instructions that a trade union or any other body gives to the professional people who carry out investigations on its behalf. There is no special rule relating to the admissibility in subsequent proceedings of the evidence that is given on such occasions. The ordinary rules of the general law of evidence govern that matter.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the Crown prosecuting service continues to rely on outside agents for the conduct of prosecution work in the magistrates courts.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In the first three months of 1991, the proportion of cases handled by agents fell to 31 per cent. of sittings and I hope that it will fall further in the remainder of the year.

Mr. Carrington: The reduction in the reliance on agents is greatly to be welcomed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that that is caused at least partly by the satisfactory increase in recruitment to the Crown prosecution service?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. It is much more satisfactory for the Crown prosecution service to be able to handle a higher proportion of cases itself. That is more satisfactory for the lawyers in the Crown prosecution service and raises their morale. My hon. Friend is right that the reduction in the use of agents stems substantially from the improved recruitment of the past year. During the past four years, there has been an increase of 604 legal staff in the Crown prosecution service, with a net increase of 212 in the past year alone.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of cases referred to the Crown prosecution service resulted in criminal proceedings being commenced, during each year since the creation of the Crown prosecution service.

The Solicitor-General: The commencement of cases is normally for the police. In the four years to 1990–91, the proportion of cases in which the Crown prosecution service, in the exercise of its review function, decided not to proceed in the magistrates court was 7·3, 8, 8·9 and 9·4 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: The Solicitor-General will be aware that there is often distress for the families of people who have died or for those who have been the victims of an accident or an injury when no proceedings follow. We have all encountered such cases and the aggrieved relatives. Is there any way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could formalise the review procedure or institute an appeals procedure at the behest of the families so that they can know that their case is being looked at again and can be involved more publicly in the procedure?

The Solicitor-General: I think that that would be a dangerous course to pursue. However, I fully understand the sensitivity with which any case that involves death has to be treated. The Crown prosecution service takes immense care when considering whether it is right to bring a prosecution in such cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in a free society, it is essential that the prosecution decision should ultimately be taken entirely independently—as it is.

Small Claims Court

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General what is the current jurisdiction of the small claims court.

The Solicitor-General: From 1 July 1991, defended money claims for an amount not exceeding £1,000 are referred to arbitration in a county court under the small claims procedure. Claims above £1,000 may be referred to arbitration if one of the parties so requests and the district judge agrees.

Mr. Marshall: Can cases for personal injury be referred to the small claims court in the same way as cases for minor debt?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, Sir. Personal injury cases can be dealt with in the small claims court either if the plaintiff recognises that the damages will be genuinely small and limits the claim to £1,000 or if an application to do so is made to the district judge and he agrees.

Serious Fraud Office

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office continues to make an increasing contribution to the detection and prosecution of commercial fraud.

Mr. Banks: Many people feel that the Government do not take white-collar crime seriously. Perhaps if the Serious Fraud Office had the necessary resources, the fraud surrounding the Bank of Credit and Commerce


International would not have taken place. Even if the office were to acquire the extra resources, what would be the point of its putting all that effort into arresting white-collar criminals such as Ernest Saunders and Gerald Ronson if, once such people have been put in prison, they are let out soon afterwards?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has asked about five questions, not all of which deal with areas for which I am responsible. As I pointed out in an answer a few weeks ago, the Serious Fraud Office has brought some 54 cases to trial in its first two years of existence, and more than two thirds of the defendants have been convicted.
I am not aware of any significant shortage of resources. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the BCCI case. The papers were sent from the Bank of England to the Serious Fraud Office on Friday and today formal acceptance of the case by the Serious Fraud Office has been announced. As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentences are not a matter for me.

Enforcement of Covenants

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the enforcement of covenants.

The Solicitor-General: The enforcement of covenants is essentially a matter of private law. There may be instances, for example section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in which Parliament gives a public authority a right to enforce a restrictive covenant as if the authority were an adjoining landowner.
Covenants relating to land may confer rights on the public, in which case it is open to the Attorney-General to lend his name to a relator action for their enforcement.

Mr. Thurnham: Where local authorities have a duty to enforce planning covenants, will my right hon. and learned Friend remind them that they have a duty to do so responsibly and robustly, and that they should not run up the white flag and run away at the first signs of aggressive development?

The Solicitor-General: I am well aware of the deep interest in my hon. Friend's constituency about such matters. His views will have been heard and understood.

Weapons Protocols

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what further representations he has received seeking changes in international protocols on the use of weapons; and what response he has made.

The Attorney-General: I have not received any representations further to those made by the hon. Gentleman on 17 June.

Mr. Flynn: Has the Attorney-General had the opportunity to study annex VII of the presidency conclusions of the recent European summit and seen the splendid recommendations there about avoiding the over-armament of the world? A new arms race is taking place which threatens the stability of the world and world peace. It threatens, too, to impoverish many third-world countries. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we are to achieve the aims and fulfil the recommendations of the European summit, there must be

some changes and that there must be some new negotiations on the protocols concerning weapons of mass destruction?

The Attorney-General: I have not had the opportunity to read the publication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I certainly agree that if there is over-armament, by definition it is a bad thing. Whether we move towards making more changes in any international instrument is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, not for me. Although I have numerous responsibilities, they do not extend that far.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Zimbabwe

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid given to Zimbabwe since its independence.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Gross bilateral aid disbursements totalled over £257 million up to December 1990, including loan disbursements by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the Government on the amount of money given to the people of Zimbabwe. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the most effective growth policy for Zimbabwe would consist of the adoption of a social market economy and the abolition of price controls?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we welcome the commitment of the Government of Zimbabwe to the economic reform programme. They have a hard road ahead, but during my talks last week with the President, the Minister of Finance and others I was convinced that the proposals that will emerge on 25 July will encompass exactly what my hon. Friend wishes to see. It is good news that the lifting of the price freeze which began in 1988 is to be extended.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that the best way in which to bring immediate and significant benefits to third-world countries such as Zimbabwe would be to roll back restrictions on trade and address the debt crisis? Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister, at the G7 summit next week, to urge positive action to help developing countries, by implementing and extending the Trinidad terms, relieving debt owed to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, setting in train a new international initiative on reducing commercial debt and reducing interest rates worldwide?

Mrs. Chalker: On the subject of trade, the hon. Lady will have heard me say in the debate on 14 December last how critical it is for developing nations that the GATT round should give them the opportunity of access to all the major markets of the world, particularly those of the EC. The Government are actively pursuing that aim.
I can tell the hon. Lady, too, that, as it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who first proposed the Trinidad terms, she need have no fear that we have not been working non-stop to try to ensure that they will not only be discussed at the G7 meeting but, I hope, accepted, even by those nations that were not so committed as we


have been from the beginning to relieve debt and to extend the relief for those countries that are undertaking economic reforms so that they can have a real chance for the future.

Good Government

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on progress in implementing the policy on good government since his speech to the Overseas Development Institute in June 1990.

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the policy on good government since June 1990.

Mrs. Chalker: As I said in my speech at Chatham House on 25 June, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, good government in support of sustainable development is an essential approach in our aid programme. Other donors, including the EC and multilateral agencies, are following similar policies. We are committed to a target of £50 million in the coming year for direct assistance towards projects promoting good government.

Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will receive and deserve the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House for this important initiative. Is she achieving any success in persuading her counterparts in the EC to adopt a similar policy on a co-ordinated basis? Will she note that, although the policy has been extremely successful in respect of Ghana, it has been most unsuccessful in respect of Burma?

Mrs. Chalker: We spent Saturday and Sunday discussing good government and aid in an EC context at an informal Development Ministers meeting in Holland. I am glad to say that our concern that good government should be encouraged is shared by all our 11 partners in the European Community and even more widely than that. The Scandinavian nations, the United States of America, Canada and nearly all the major donors now believe that good government must be among the ways in which we encourage developing countries to improve their performance. It is true that Ghana has made some brave steps and there are encouraging signs, particularly now that the Provisional National Defence Council has invited political exiles to return. With Burma, in respect of which we have no Government aid programme, the outlook is very bleak indeed.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from promoting good government, the initiative also means that money from the British taxpayer is more likely to be spent correctly in third-world countries than was the case in the past?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we can get recipient Governments to show positive accountability to the people and to be transparent in their conduct of affairs, we can be far more sure that our money has reached the place for which it was intended.

Mr. Sedgemore: Would not it aid good government and sustainable development if Britain gave humanitarian aid to Cambodia rather than military aid to the allies of the

Khmer Rouge? Is not it a scandal that Treasury counsel spent five hours in the High Court of Justice on Friday arguing that details of the military aid given to the allies of the Khmer Rouge should be kept from the British public?

Mrs. Chalker: I suppose that I should no longer be surprised at the hon. Gentleman. All that I can say to him is that the British Government have never supported the Khmer Rouge and never will support the Khmer Rouge. The British Government help the people of Cambodia through some non-governmental organisations. We do not have a government-to-government aid programme. I only hope that, with other donors, we shall soon be able to help the Cambodian people as a result of the comprehensive political settlement on Cambodia that we hope will be achieved.

Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Lady is being disingenuous. She knows as well as everyone else in the House that the Government have been providing military and other aid to terrorists who are allies of the Khmer Rouge. I appreciate that that is not directly her responsibility, but when will we start aiding the people in Cambodia who are helping to rebuild that country rather than the people who are helping to destroy it?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said in response to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I have said, and I repeat, that we are ready and willing, with other donors, to help the people of Cambodia in the context of a comprehensive political settlement. We have never given aid to the Khmer Rouge. We will not give aid to the Khmer Rouge. That is exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and I have said it before in the House.

South Africa

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to aid development in poor areas in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: We are already doing so. Our bilateral aid programme for black South Africans is designed to benefit people disadvantaged by apartheid throughout South Africa. We are involved in education, housing, community development and health.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome ending of apartheid must mean—

Mr. Tony Banks: It has not ended.

Mr. Greenway: The approaching end of apartheid—I accept the hon. Gentleman's point—must mean that the South African economy will develop more rapidly and strongly? Will not that benefit all sections of the community and if there is any danger of its not doing so, will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that it does?

Mrs. Chalker: We have repeatedly stressed that the lifting of the apartheid legislation in South Africa should pave the way for investment into South Africa. The one thing that the black South African needs more than anything is investment in industry and training. That should happen as soon as possible. We have made good


progress in the European context. Good progress is being made in South Africa. I welcome the announcement at the ANC conference that there was a need for flexibility in the lifting of sanctions.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kenneth Baker—statement.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had just been told that I take points of order in their usual place immediately after statements.

Mr. Williams: I thought that it was after questions.

Mr. Speaker: No, not after questions—after the statements.

Brixton Prison (Escapes)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the escape of two category A high-risk prisoners from Brixton prison using a firearm on the morning of 7 July. They were awaiting trial at the central criminal court for serious offences, including conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.
Yesterday moring the two prisoners, named Pearse Gerrard McAuley and Nessan Quinlivan, attended the first Roman Catholic mass of the day in the prison. The service began at 9.15 am and finished at about 10.5 am. Since both were high-risk prisoners, they were subject to the usual security precautions. Accordingly, they underwent a rub-down search before leaving their secure unit for the chapel. They were escorted there by three officers.
After the service, and again in accordance with the usual procedures, the prisoners were escorted by three prison officers to return to their unit. A dog patrol supervised them between the chapel and the main prison building. Once inside, and in a narrow passageway, one of the prisoners produced a firearm and took one of the escorting officers hostage, holding the gun to his head. He fired a shot above the officer's head, and the other prisoner took the keys of the hostage officer and used them to gain access to the prison centre. In the centre a further shot was fired, which passed through the clothing of another officer. The prisoners and their hostage went through two other gates, entering a building yard.
In the yard, another shot was fired to keep pursuing staff at bay, and the prisoners reached the prison wall at a point where they were able to scale it despite the razor wire at the top. They then escaped into the married quarters area outside the prison and threatened a prison officer who was cleaning his car. They took possession of the car, but abandoned it when they found that their route was blocked.
They were at that point within a few yards of Brixton hill, where they stopped a private car. The driver was ordered out and shot in the upper right leg and the woman passenger got out unharmed. I am pleased to say that the driver is recovering in hospital. The car was driven into Brixton and abandoned in a side street. With the money that they had taken from the car driver, they used a taxi to take them to Baker street tube station.
I am deeply disturbed by this grave lapse of security, and by the associated risk to members of the public, have decided that we must have a swift and independent inquiry into the circumstances of this deplorable incident, so that any necessary lessons can be learnt promptly. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, his Honour Judge Tumim, to carry out a full inquiry with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into the circumstances of the escape of prisoners McAuley and Quinlivan from HM Prison Brixton on Sunday, 7 July, and in particular to review the security arrangements for handling high risk prisoners in this prison; to assess how those arrangements were operated on the day concerned; and to make recommendations".
I spoke to Judge Tumim this morning, and he told me that he will be starting the task immediately. He will be assisted by the police. I have asked him to submit an interim report by the end of this month. Subject to the

need to protect sensitive security material, and to the possibility of criminal charges being laid, I intend that the chief inspector's findings should be published.
When Judge Tumim inspected Brixton last year, his report referred to certain comments on security matters which he had put directly to the director-general of the prison service. These dealt with matters of physical security, including the position and coverage of closed circuit television. I shall be asking the inquiry to pay particular attention to the progress made in these areas.
Judge Tumim also recommended that we should reconsider holding category A high-risk prisoners in Brixton when new accommodation became available at the new Belmarsh prison in Woolwich. The director-general accepted this recommendation. The new unit at Belmarsh for all category A prisoners in London who are designated as a high risk has been recently completed. It had been planned to use this as from November, but I have decided to bring this forward to next month.
In the meantime, I have taken the following action. All governors of prisons which hold category A prisoners, other than dispersal prisons, have been asked to review urgently their procedures for handling category A high-risk prisoners whenever it is necessary for them to leave their secure units. In particular, governors must consider immediately whether religious services can be provided for such prisoners in their living areas rather than allowing them to move to chapels. I have asked the director-general of the prison service to report to me on this as a matter of urgency.
I have also given instructions that other prisoners awaiting trial on terrorist charges should be moved immediately from Brixton to high-security dispersal prisons.
This was a very serious incident and no time must 13e lost in finding out exactly what happened and taking all possible measures to prevent such an event re-occurring.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary will know that the public response to yesterday's escape of men charged with such serious crimes has been a combination of anger and incredulity that such a thing should happen. We certainly welcome the promise of a full inquiry and we insist that the Home Secretary report its findings to the House. However, there are questions that can properly be answered and must be answered today.
Before I ask those questions I express our sympathy for the man who was wounded during the escape and our admiration for those prison officers who attempted to recapture armed men.
I shall ask the Home Secretary specific questions so that he may, as he must, answer them directly. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons told the Government that high-risk category A prisoners should not be held in Brixton. He said:
It did not have the physical defences necessary for the job.
Why were men on terrorist charges not moved out of that prison at once? Why did the Home Secretary wait until two other escapes had occurred? Why is the Home Secretary now taking action that he should have taken last year, and how does he justify such incompetence?
Her Majesty's inspector went on to make recommendations about improved security at Brixton. Why were his


comments on the dangers of overcrowding ignored, and why were his recommendations on improved physical security not implemented?
The Home Secretary referred in his statement to "two other gates." Will he confirm that one gate in the prison was open because its security locks had not yet been fixed? He also spoke of the prisoners scaling the wall in spite of razor wire. Will he confirm that all that was necessary for that task was a conveniently placed dog kennel and a wheelbarrow? Will he also confirm that those two category A prisoners charged with terrorist offences were not even kept in a security wing but were held—incredibly— together in an annexe overlooking the builder's yard from which they escaped?
Lord Justice Woolf said in his report on prison disturbances that break-outs were most likely at weekends because of reduced staffing levels. Why has the Home Secretary not even responded to Lord Justice Woolf's recommendation on those matters? Why has action been taken, specifically at Brixton, to increase activity, such as visiting, at weekends while staffing has been left at levels considered inadequate by Lord Justice Woolf six, eight or even 10 months ago? Can we now expect the Home Secretary to take belated action on that subject?
Yesterday the Home Secretary chose not to make a statement himself but to allow an official to represent the Government's point of view. That in itself showed the Home Secretary's attitude. That official response was terrifyingly complacent, for the official described arrangements at Brixton as "adequate", even though that morning two men on terrorist charges had escaped. Nothing that we have heard from the Home Secretary this afternoon suggests that, even now, the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation or that the Home Secretary begins to accept a jot of responsibility for what happened. His response—his wish to skip away from all responsibility for what occurred yesterday—shows that he is entirely unfit to occupy his office.

Mr. Baker: I am not slipping away from any responsibility in this matter. I answer to the House and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I want the report of Judge Tumim published when it becomes available. I have asked that it should be available by the end of this month, which case will make it the fastest report on any prison incident in recent years.
First, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the securing of high-risk category A prisoners in Brixton. Judge Tumim's report referred to the possibility of other accommodation becoming available as a result of Belmarsh opening, and we have accepted that recommendation. The accommodation has only just been completed: it was to be ready in November, but I have now made it available next month, at the earliest possible opportunity.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked where the individual prisoners were kept. They were kept in A wing. The responsibility—

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary still sliding away from responsibility?

Mr. Baker: Perhaps I may answer the right hon. Gentleman's original question. The matter will have to be examined by the inquiry, but where individual prisoners are kept is the direct responsibility of the governor.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about overcrowding. I do not believe that yesterday's incident had any bearing on the overcrowding problems in Her Majesty's prisons. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have increased the size of the prison officer force by some 4,200 in the past three years, at a time when the prison population has fallen by 5,000. He should at least recognise that that means that there are now two prisoners for each prison officer. When we came to office, there was one prison officer for three prisoners, and in the 1950s there was one prison officer for six prisoners.
We have totally shown our commitment to increasing resources in that way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the incident that occurred yesterday, deplorable as it was, had any relationship to overcrowding.

Mr. Hattersley: What about the gate?

Mr. Baker: The question of the gate will be a matter for the inquiry to examine, as indeed it should be. I have already heard different evidence from other people about that, and it will be for the inquiry and Judge Tumim to resolve. The right hon. Gentleman is unfair to say that staffing levels have any bearing on the issue. Staff at the secure units in Brixton yesterday were fully up to strength.

Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what priority the Government give to security in prisons and how much money the Government spend on security? Does he agree that the prison officers in Brixton, in my constituency, do a remarkably fine job, given the antiquated Victorian building in which they have to work? Does he agree that to avoid entirely incidents as lamentable as yesterday's would take a draconian regime such as that at the Lubyanka under Stalin, which would be unacceptable in a civilised country such as this?

Mr. Baker: On the last point, the first responsibility of any prison governor is to ensure that those prisoners submitted to his care and custody are kept in custody. That must be the first responsibility, and he must take measures appropriate to fulfil it.
As for expenditure on security, this year we are spending £13 million on schemes to improve specific aspects of security in prisons, compared with £8 million last year. I must emphasise that that applies only to specific security work. Security protection, and improvements to it, are implicit in almost every facet of the building programme, from major refurbishment of prisons or parts of prisons—which this year alone will cost £81 million—down to quite minor building works carried out at the discretion of individual prisons.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the work of prison officers, to whom I also pay tribute. I accept that working in an old prison such as Brixton is much more difficult than working in a modern one, which is why we are committed to the largest prison building programme that this country has ever known. We are currently building 12 new prisons, which will come on stream in the next two to three years.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that Judge Tumim's report drawing attention to the security dangers of Brixton was available to him as long ago as last August but it took him five months to accept the recommendation that high-security prisoners should be moved to Belmarsh


in December, the Belmarsh accommodation being opened in April, but the prisoners not being moved then? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in announcing that prisoners are not to be moved until next month, he is showing a dilatoriness and an attitude to the security of our citizens that is wholly unacceptable in a Home Secretary?
Does he also acknowledge that Judge Tumim's earlier recommendations spoke of the security dangers in having such a depleted staff? Unless and until Judge Tumim contradicts himself, we shall have to hold the right hon. Gentleman personally responsible for not having acted on that advice. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is now asking Judge Tumim to consider whether or not his recommendations on security, made to the director-general, are progressing appropriately. Why did he not ask those questions before the escapes?

Mr. Baker: Various measures were mentioned in Judge Tumim's report in December last year, and specific recommendations were made to the director-general. One recommendation was made to me about the possibility of moving prisoners when Belmarsh became available. I confirm that next month will present the earliest opportunity for Belmarsh to be available, but by then it will be fully equipped and provided with the specialist officers necessary for high-category prisoners.
As to the other recommendations, I was advised by the director-general of the prison service that they were all considered and that action was taken. It will be for the inquiry to decide whether further action should have been taken.

Sir John Wheeler: I know that my right hon. Friend accepts the seriousness of the incident, and he rightly advised the House that Judge Tumim's inquiry will investigate management failings, or whatever went wrong, and will report accordingly. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Brixton prison, despite its deficiencies, has a special unit for high-risk category A prisoners, although whether or not that unit was in use at the time of the incident is a matter for the inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that Brixton's establishment of prison officers is up to strength?

Mr. Baker: Yesterday, about 150 officers were available in the rest of the prison, and in the security unit the number of officers dedicated to category A prisoners—that is, high-risk prisoners—was fully up to strength.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Home Secretary is responsible for policy. Is it the case that there has been an increase in recent years in the number of provisional IRA prisoners in our gaols? If so, has that been discussed with the prison service? If there are more PIRA prisoners, we are growing nearer, if not close, to the situation in Northern Ireland. Would it not be a good idea to talk to the Northern Ireland Office prison department, which has for many years faced the problem of containing PIRA prisoners who, if they escape, are prepared to injure and to murder, as we saw yesterday?
Will the right hon. Gentleman quickly review the situation at all establishments holding PIRA prisoners, because even if there are only one or two such prisoners at each, the same problems are created? Will he allow the anti-terrorist squad to advise prison officers, because they

know more than ordinary prison officers, in the same way as Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in Northern Ireland do?
Will the Home Secretary investigate, in particular, prison perimeters? Yesterday's events proved that security measures suitable for ordinary prisoners are not sufficient to contain persons determined to escape with the aid of a gun.

Mr. Baker: I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's comments, because he has borne responsibility both for prisons and for Northern Ireland. There is a great deal to learn from the Irish penal system and from the Irish prison system. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there was once a much larger escape than that which occurred yesterday, and we have learnt from such experiences over the years.
As to the question of convicted IRA terrorists, and terrorists generally, yesterday I passed an instruction through the system that particular measures should be taken to review the security of all terrorist prisoners. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, most such prisoners are held in dispersal prisons, where the degree of security for the whole prison—not just for secure units, as in a remand prison such as Brixton or a local prison—is much greater. Their features include a series of walls and dog patrols.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a big prison such as Brixton presents particular problems because it contains a large number of remand prisoners who expect their families and their legal representatives to be allowed access to them. That creates considerable problems when high-risk category A prisoners are being held on remand in the same establishment—as was the case with the two who escaped yesterday. There are two secure units in Brixton, but the men managed to escape when they were in transit from one part of the prison to another. That is why I specifically asked all prison governors immediately to review the situations in their prisons. The problem does not arise in a dispersal prison, but it does in prisons where there are remand prisoners.

Mr. Michael Shersby: My right hon. Friend's initiative in commissioning an immediate inquiry is welcome. Is it normal practice for visitors to Brixton prison to be adequately searched, given that Brixton contains high-risk category A prisoners? Will my right hon. Friend invite Judge Tumim to consider whether such prisoners should still be allowed to attend acts of collective worship, or whether it would not be more satisfactory for them to be provided with facilities allowing them individual acts of worship, bearing in mind other prison disturbances in the past year?

Mr. Baker: In certain instances, going to chapel has provided an opportunity for prisoners to engage in activities other than spiritual devotion. I have therefore asked all prison governors immediately to examine whether the religious service can be provided in the secure units themselves. That is a sensible suggestion. My hon. Friend asked about visits. All visitors have to be cleared under special arrangements. Their identities have to be verified by the police, and visits are subject to close supervision. Visitors are not allowed to take any hand luggage to the visit, and they are screened by a metal detector. The inmate is searched before each visit, usually


a rub search, and he is strip-searched after each visit. The visit is supervised by two prison officers who remain in the same room within sight and hearing.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Home Secretary impress upon all concerned the damaging effect on the morale of the police and the security services whose members risk their lives to put behind bars ruthless men who, when they get out or are let out, quickly revert to their murderous activity?

Mr. Baker: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I think that the general feeling in the country is of considerable annoyance and anger that this breach of security has led to the escape of two suspected terrorists.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will give all possible assistance to the police and security services in their efforts to capture these two criminals? Further charges relating to yesterday's incident and not to what these two men may have been arrested for before seem likely. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the publication of Judge Tumim's report will not be delayed and changes in security arrangements held up because of any case against these two men?

Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was careful in my description to the House not to identify which of the prisoners was engaged in which action, because it is possible that criminal charges will be laid when these two men are apprehended.

Mr. Alan Williams: Since these men were outside the secure unit yesterday, can the Minister clarify an earlier answer and say whether that was normal on a Sunday for those two men? He said that the secure unit was fully up to its establishment of prison officers. Rather differently, he said that in the rest of the prison 150 officers were on duty. Is 150 the establishment figure and, if not, how much is it short of establishment?

Mr. Baker: Yesterday another nine or 10 officers should have been on duty in the rest of the prison. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the complement for what is called the A secure group was up to strength and that the number needed to escort category A prisoners was also up to strength yesterday.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prison officers in this country have better wages and terms and conditions than prison officers anywhere else in Europe? Instead of complaining about underfunding would it not be better for the Prison Officers Association to consider whether its members acted competently in this matter?

Mr. Baker: That is really not a matter for me. I think that it is a matter for the inquiry under Judge Tumim, who will clearly wish to identify the way in which a small firearm and bullets could be smuggled into a prison and used by the two prisoners in their escape.
I confirm my hon. Friend's general remarks about prison officers. I again remind the House that in the past three years we have increased the number of prison officers by more than 4,000 which is the largest ever increase in

prison officers. Some 2,500 prison officers are currently being trained, which is the largest ever number undergoing training. That shows our determination and commitment properly to protect the public.

Mr. John Cartwright: In the light of yesterday's events, does the Home Secretary accept that my constituents will not be exactly overjoyed to hear that high-risk prisoners are to be moved to Belmarsh? Having visited that prison, however, will the Home Secretary confirm my view that high-risk prisoners are likely to be a great deal more secure there than at Brixton? Furthermore, is it normal for high-risk prisoners on terrorist charges to be allowed to associate with each other to the extent that they can concoct an escape plot of this sort? If that is the case, will that matter also be examined by the inquiry?

Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that matter will be looked at by the inquiry. As I said earlier, the disposition of prisoners around a particular prison, once they have been allocated to it, is entirely the governor's responsibility. Belmarsh is a very secure prison. That is why we have decided to bring forward the opening date of the secure unit so that high risk category A prisoners can be moved from Brixton at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is grotesque for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to come here with a bellyful of outrage when he has consistently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and when both he and his party are pledged to repeal it?

Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. The right hon. Gentleman and his party refused to vote for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. They also never funded the prison service or the police service properly when they were in office. The right hon. Gentleman's outrage is entirely bogus.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The Home Secretary reported today on what took place on a Sunday. May I remind him that the last serious prison incident, which was at Strangeways, also took place on a Sunday? Does that point in any way to an insufficiency of officers and personnel on duty on Sundays? Were any lessons learnt from the Strangeways inquiry? Will the Home Secretary also comment on the fact that it is now claimed that there has been no random search at Brixton prison since 1987?

Mr. Baker: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. Both prisoners were searched thoroughly on 28 June and 3 July, and on 3 July their cells were changed. I fully recognise that there is a problem with high-risk security A prisoners when they go to chapel on Sundays. That is why I have asked governors throughout the country with high-risk security A prisoners to examine whether church services, if prisoners wish to attend them, should be provided in the prisoners' own secure living quarters.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Would it be fair to assume that shooting an innocent motorist is a criminal offence and not a political offence? Therefore, should the fugitives find their way to the Irish Republic,


may we assume that there will be no difficulty whatever in bringing them back to this country under the extradition procedures?

Mr. Baker: The short answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: As previous inspectors' reports have suggested that weekends are a time of high risk, can the Home Secretary state categorically whether staffing arrangements and levels in Brixton and other prisons are the same at weekends as during the week, or even increased to take account of that danger—or is there a reduction in staffing levels at weekends?

Mr. Baker: The practice for many years in all our prisons has been to reduce staff at weekends because there is less circulation of prisoners, education does not take place, and workshops are not open.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that the Opposition spend most of their time worrying about prisoners' rights rather than about their own responsibility to the public? Does he agree that if these prisoners had been left in their cells over the weekend, without the right to have visitors or the right to a so-called church visit, we should not be discussing today what happened at Brixton?

Mr. Baker: If that had been the case, there would have been tremendous complaints to the Home Secretary about what was available to prisoners. There is no doubt whatever about that. A balance has to be struck but, as I made clear to the director-general of the prison service today, the first responsibility of the prison system and of the governors is to ensure that prisoners are held in secure custody.

Mr. David Winnick: Would the Home Secretary be good enough to answer my question if he can? What does he feel that Sir Thomas Dugdale would have done if he had been Home Secretary? Given all the incompetence of which we have learnt today, does the Home Secretary feel that he has some responsibility for what happened?

Mr. Baker: I accept responsibility, as the Home Secretary must. As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the Home Secretary is responsible for policy in prison matters. The administration, development and running of the prisons are the responsibility of the director-general and of individual prison governors.

Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the understandable concern and shock felt at this news, which will partly be reduced by the news that there is to be a full and published report. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be ridiculously premature and facile to apportion blame at this stage, in advance of that report?

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. Already this morning, I have received reports from people who witnessed what occurred in the prison. I specifically did not refer to those reports, which do not confirm many of the points and allegations which have been made. It would be appropriate for Judge Tumim's inquiry to investigate because, as I said, criminal charges are a possibility. One

should not, therefore, be too quick to apportion blame or to say that certain events took place when there are question marks over them.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary make sure that Judge Tumim's report is published before the House goes into recess around 25 July, so that we have an opportunity to discuss its contents? Would not pressure on the prison authorities at Brixton as a remand prison be relieved if some of the prisoners on remand were brought speedily to trial? There are still a large number of people there who have served longer on remand than they would have served in gaol if they had gone to court and been convicted of crimes.

Mr. Baker: In this case, the evidence was being accumulated in order to bring a prosecution. In general, I agree that it would be better to telescope the time spent on remand. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are considering various changes in procedure which will accelerate that process.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is something of a red herring to complain about a shortage of prison officers at weekends, as some Opposition Members did, when in reality those men would not have escaped if they had not had a gun? It is important for the inquiry to get to the bottom of that security lapse and find out how the gun came to be smuggled into the prison. Will my right hon. Friend also ask the inquiry to look into the effectiveness of the razor wire, over which the men were apparently able to climb without injury?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that that point will feature strongly in Judge Tumim's report and that he will investigate how it was possible for that event to occur. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that a wheelbarrow was used, but the evidence that I received this morning shows that such a device was not used in the escape. Reference was made to the proximity of dog kennels to the wall, and the inquiry will certainly investigate that.

Mr. John Fraser: As the hon. Member for a constituency adjoining the prison, I remind the Home Secretary that he has had the advantage not only of Judge Tumim's report but of an earlier report on the escape of two suspected serious terrorists when, in similar circumstances, Lord Whitelaw assured us that such incidents would never occur again. How much personal responsibility does the Home Secretary accept for this disgraceful incident?

Mr. Baker: I am not trying to shirk any personal responsibility. As Home Secretary, I am responsible for the prison service. It is right that Judge Tumim's inquiry should establish what happened to ensure that such events do not recur.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Have not the Government employed increasing numbers of prison officers in recent years to provide an increasing number of searches? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there will be regular searches not only of the cells of category A prisoners but of the prisoners themselves so as to lessen the possibility of such incidents recurring?

Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that high-risk prisoners are searched very frequently. As I said, whenever they have had a visit—a prisoner on remand has the right to a visit once a day—they are strip-searched. Their cells are also searched, and high-risk category A prisoners are moved from cell to cell randomly and at short intervals.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I commend my right hon. Friend not only for the speed with which the inquiry is to report, but on the manner of his statement? Does he agree that, although staffing levels are properly a subject that the inquiry will wish to consider, it is the height of irresponsibility for those who ought to know better to jump to the easy conclusion that staffing levels must have been responsible, even though such conclusions may be politically convenient for them?

Mr. Baker: It is quite clear that staffing levels are not one of the factors involved in this incident. Judge Tumim will explore all the circumstances to try to throw light on how it was possible for a small firearm and bullets to be smuggled into a prison and to be used by prisoners in their escape, which is unacceptable not only to me but to the House and to the country.

Mr. Hattersley: I note that the Home Secretary does at least accept responsibility for policy matters. Why has he been so dilatory in responding to the Woolf recommendation and the Tumim recommendation about weekend staffing? When will he be ready to make recommendations on an issue which, as he has already been warned, causes increased danger on Saturdays and Sundays?

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman also said that I had not interpreted the findings of the Tumim inquiry correctly with regard to Belmarsh. We are discussing weekend staffing with the Prison Officers Association. At present, there are disputes about manning levels at about 40 prisons. Given the tremendous increase in prison officers and the fact that we are currently training 2,500, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the Prison Officers Association—if it listens to him, which I doubt—to engage in the disputes procedure to resolve those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked me earlier by saying that I had not acted quickly enough on Judge Tumim's recommendations in relation to Belmarsh. I refer him to section 6.11 of the report, which states:
The need for high risk category A inmates to be held in Brixton should be re-examined in the light of (a) the opening of Belmarsh and prevailing security arrangements.
That is exactly what I have done.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Bank of Credit and Commerce group.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is today attending a meeting of the Economic and Finance Council in Brussels, which is discussing a number of issues that occupied the recent meeting of the European Council. He has asked me to give his apologies to the House for being unable to make this statement himself.
The Bank of England, along with the authorities in a number of other jurisdictions, took action on Friday to secure control of the assets of the Bank of Credit and Commerce group.
The BCC group operated in this country through a Luxembourg incorporated company, BCCI SA, which had a number of branches in the United Kingdom, mostly in the London area. On Friday, the directorate of the Luxembourg Monetary Institute took action under Luxembourg law to secure control of the assets of the company. This was done in consultation with other regulatory authorities concerned, which have taken appropriate action against other subsidiaries and operations of the BCC group.
The effect of these actions was to place the assets and liabilities of the entities concerned under the protective control of the supervisory authorities or of the courts, as appropriate, of each country. In the United Kingdom, following a petition made by the Bank of England, the United Kingdom courts have appointed Touche Ross as provisional liquidator. The effect of this action is that deposits with the United Kingdom branches of BCCI SA are frozen.
The action taken by the regulatory authorities resulted from prima facia evidence, contained in a report commissioned by the Bank of England and recently received, of widespread fraud in a number of jurisdictions stretching back over a number of years. The action was taken in order to safeguard the interests of depositors, other bona fide creditors and the shareholders of the BCC group. A copy of a press notice issued by the Bank explaining its action has been placed in the House Library.
The principal supervisory authorities are seeking the co-operation of other authorities in other countries in which BCCI has been in business, with a view to securing a rundown of the group. They are seeking co-operation to identify and take appropriate action against those responsible for any wrongdoing. Relevant papers have been passed to the Serious Fraud Office.
Within the United Kingdom, the immediate effect of the supervisors' action is that United Kingdom depositors cannot withdraw their funds. Sterling deposits in the United Kingdom branches are covered by the deposit protection fund to the extent of 75 per cent. of deposits up to £20,000—that is, up to£15,000 per depositor. The Bank of England has issued a notice explaining the position of United Kingdom depositors and the operation of the funds. A copy has been placed in the House Library. The


deposit protection fund will be activated as soon as a winding-up order is made in the United Kingdom courts. Claims will be processed as quickly as possible.
The Bank held a meeting with the main high street banks and the liquidator this morning. As a result, arrangements are being set in place for the liquidators to aid the banks in their assessment of applications from small businesses for alternative facilities. Although that assessment is a commercial matter for the banks, I hope that they will respond as sympathetically as possible. The banks are also urgently discussing with the liquidators whether comparable arrangements can be made for small depositors who find themselves in immediate difficulties. In addition, Touche Ross is willing for six weeks to give free advice to any small business affected by the BCCI winding-up.
Under the Banking Act 1987, the Bank of England has sole responsibility for authorising and supervising banks and the Government have no locus in its decisions. The Government were, however, kept fully informed of the proposed action and it has our full support.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that the most disturbing feature of the whole affair is that the system of regulation which applied to the BCC group appears to have failed with serious losses for individuals—and companies—who were the customers? In a world in which, following the deregulation of the 1980s, money is permitted to flow in colossal amounts across continents and frontiers, is it satisfactory for financial institutions to be able to minimise scrutiny by locating parts of their operations in jurisdictions in which regulation is deliberately less rigorous? Will the Government pursue at international level through, for example, the Bank for International Settlements and the European Community, the need to make supervisory controls more effective so that a sad outcome is made less likely in future?
On the bank's depositors, do the Government consider that the deposit protection scheme is sufficient, bearing in mind the limitation that only 75 per cent. of the first £20,000 lost can be recovered? Is it not anomalous that the investors' compensation scheme pays far more generous compensation—the first £30,000 in full and 90 per cent. of losses between £30,000 and £50,000?
Can the Minister explain why the audits of the bank do not appear to have revealed the problems that are now apparent? Should there not be a tightening of the audit requirements in respect of banks, for which the regulatory system is rendered less effective by international complications? Can the Minister tell the House when the Bank of England first became aware of the serious problems at the bank? Can he assure us that it is not necessary for a complaint to be made before action is taken?
Does the Minister appreciate that many firms, especially among our enterprising Asian community, which have already had to face the ravages of the recession may now be put out of business through no fault of their own? Given that it was not their fault that regulation failed in this case, what action do the Government propose to take to help those businesses to survive the disaster that has befallen them? Does the Minister appreciate that it is impossible for people to run a business if they have lost the bank that they used and they do not have another bank to

provide the facilities? Surely it is possible for the Government to do more than ask the liquidators to advise the banks to accept applications from those business men.
Is not the situation near to a disaster in many Asian business communities? Is it not necessary for the Government to take emergency action, perhaps in co-operation with the Bank of England and the clearing banks, and to give emergency assistance to the businesses? The most important facilities that they need are banking facilities so that they can carry on. Does the Minister appreciate that it is not enough to get free advice from Touche Ross for six weeks? Something more substantial is needed to help businesses, especially Asian businesses, in this community, which are in difficulty through no fault of their own and which are responsible for many thousands of jobs, especially in our inner cities.

Mr. Maples: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be quite so dismissive of the generous offer of Touche Ross to provide advice about making alternative banking arrangements to businesses that are in difficulties. The Bank of England and the liquidator are trying to put in place arrangements to help businesses in that position. This morning the Bank of England and the liquidator had a meeting with the nine major high street banks to discover what can be done.
Although there are technicalities which must be overcome—I hope that it will be possible to overcome them—the banks are trying to put together a scheme whereby if a business which is in difficulties and is trying to establish alternative banking facilities approaches one of the nine major banks and releases the liquidator from the requirements of confidentiality, the liquidator will then act as quickly as possible to make available to that bank details of how the business has conducted its affairs with BCCI and their status, and generally provide a substantial amount of information.
As to whether the other bank would be prepared to take on that business, we must bear in mind that different firms may be in different positions. They could be borrowers, have deposits with the bank or simply be seeking alternative banking facilities. However, in all those circumstances, I hope that the arrangements will be brought to fruition. If they are, they would help to deal with the serious problems described by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there were problems with the way in which the group was organised, that international co-operation was necessary to supervise international groups and that the system of regulation has not performed as well as it might have done. He also wanted to know when the Bank of England first knew about the problem.
As we all know, there had been rumours surrounding BCCI for a very long time, but there had been no hard evidence—of which the Bank has said it is aware—of any reason for it to withdraw its licence. The evidence of very serious fraud came to light about 10 days ago in the Price Waterhouse report, about which there has been a good deal of publicity in the newspapers. The Bank acted extremely quickly after that.
There is certainly difficulty with international supervision; that is what the current efforts on the second banking directive and co-ordination of those matters at Bank of International Settlements level is about. However,


the Bank of England played the leading role in putting together the international college of supervisors which for the past two years supervised BCCI's affairs.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that the deposit protection scheme was insufficient. The level of compensation under that scheme was set by the House deliberately to protect small depositors and not to give a carte blanche Government guarantee on all deposits. It would be extremely expensive and somewhat foolhardy from a prudential point of view if the Government were to give very extensive guarantees. The scheme guarantees everyone 75 per cent. of their money up to a maximum of £15,000 and that can be said adequately to cover small depositors. Larger depositors are, of course, in a very unfortunate position and they will have to wait for the outcome of the liquidation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the audit procedures. There are difficulties in auditing an international group like this, but the Bank of England took the lead in insisting a few years ago that the group should have one auditor, and that has played a large role in bringing the problems to light.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the protection fund does not cover commercial deposits? As it is not a British bank, will my hon. Friend confirm that the contributory institutions will all be liable to contribute to the fund, unlike the situation under the Banking Act 1987? Will he publish a list of those in the Official Report? In light of the overall situation, will he keep the House informed?

Mr. Maples: I will certainly continue to keep the House informed if there are any developments about which I think the House would be interested to hear.
The deposit protection fund covers all sterling deposits with the bank up to a maximum compensation of £15,000. It covers non-resident sterling deposits and commercial sterling deposits, but it does not cover resident non-sterling deposits. As I understand it, the deposit protection board can raise the necessary money either by borrowing it or through a levy on the other licensed banks in the United Kingdom which would share that in proportion in some way to their size. It would hope to recover the bulk of any money disbursed from the liquidation in which it would be an unsecured creditor.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister said that the major purpose of the Bank of England's action was to safeguard the interests of depositors. Clearly the action that has been taken and the compensation available will not be sufficient to safeguard the interests of depositors. It is not simply a case of individual savings being limited to compensation of £15,000. Small businesses, which clearly use sums of money in excess of that, will face grievous losses. A substantial part of the Bangladesh cyclone relief fund had been deposited in that bank and that is now to be limited to £15,000 compensation. Will the Minister again look at the regulations in the Banking Acts 1979 and 1987 and see whether they can be adjusted to a more realistic level to take account of the undoubted needs and problems of thousands of people, savers and small business men, particularly in the Asian community?

Mr. Maples: I said that that action had been taken to protect the interests of depositors, because, if it had been allowed to continue and serious fraud had continued, the interests of the creditors of the bank would have been seriously endangered. The action protects their interests.
As to small businesses, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that many of them have a very serious problem. That is why I outlined the arrangements which the Bank of England, the liquidator and the main high street banks are trying to put in place to help those people. I said that I hope that the banks would look at that sympathetically. I outlined what the arrangements would be, but there are some technicalities which must be overcome. I hope that they will be overcome very shortly.
On the adequacy of payments under the deposit protection arrangements, I said that they were deliberately set by the House in such a way as to protect small depositors. It would be very unwise if the House and the Government were to underwrite at public expense all the depositors with a bank in the United Kingdom. That could be very expensive indeed. Depositors of large amounts of money should perhaps be aware that they will not qualify for compensation whereas small retail depositors will.

Sir Peter Tapsell: While no one, I think, would suggest that deposit protection arrangements should be unlimited, will my hon. Friend give further thought to whether they are sufficient at a level of £15,000, bearing in mind that the United States equivalent is $100,000? Also, is the Abu Dhabi investment authority following these matters very closely and has it said whether it accepts any responsibility in view of the fact that it is the controlling shareholder of the bank?

Mr. Maples: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the adequacy or otherwise of the deposit protection fund, but I can only reiterate what I have already said twice. The level was deliberately set by the House in such a way as to offer protection to small depositors. One should think very carefully before extending that on a much wider basis. I do not think that we would want to be in the position that the United States is in, with lavish deposit insurance which effectively underwrites any banking activities.
The major shareholder has played a constructive role in the bank over the past few years and has injected capital on several occasions. The Bank of England is, of course, in contact with it, and it expects tonight to meet representatives of the shareholders, the Government of Abu Dhabi and the central bank of the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Earlier this afternoon, I met members of staff and investors outside the Bank of England. They were desperately worried because they had not been kept informed of the decisions that had been taken. Will the Minister urge the Governor of the Bank of England to keep the staff and investors informed of precisely what is happening? Will he look also at the emergency relief procedure? The procedure that he outlined will take several weeks. I met a person who believed that his life savings had gone because of the decision of the Bank of England. Frankly, in my view, he was potentially suicidal. What action are the Government proposing to take to help such people on an emergency basis?
Will the Minister confirm whether the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, together with the federal reserve bank and the Bank of England were, until very recently, negotiating the possibility of launching a new bank? How was that possible at the same time as an investigation was going on into BCCI?

Mr. Maples: Negotiations have been taking place for some time between the supervisors and the shareholders to see whether the bank could be reconstructed in an acceptable way, but that was before the evidence of the serious frauds came to light. In the opinion of the Bank of England, it is now quite clear that no such reconstructed bank could possibly be acceptable to the supervisors involved. Therefore, that line of thought is no longer being pursued.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the staff. The liquidator met the staff at 2.30 pm today and hopes to be able to pay them last week's wages as soon as possible. For the time being, all those people are still employed by BCCI. The liquidator will clearly need to keep some of them on, but the others will be entitled to whatever they would have been entitled to under their terms of redundancy if the bank had not been liquidated. I understand that employees are preferred creditors for overdue wages and for some, if not all, of their redundancy rights. Therefore, although there is obviously considerable concern and uncertainty among the employees, at the end of the day, they are likely to be looked after as well as can be expected in the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about small depositors, as well as about small businesses. The bank is attempting to put in place similar arrangements for small depositors to those that I have described for small businesses. That issue was discussed at the same meeting with the high street banks. If a BCCI depositor gives the confidentiality release to one of those banks—so that BCCI can inform the new bank of the size of the deposit and whether it was secured in any way against a loan or was a free deposit—it is hoped that it will be possible to construct arrangements under which part of the compensation which the depositor could expect to receive from the deposit protection fund could be advanced to the depositor if he or she is in serious need of funds. Again, there are considerable technicalities to be overcome. 1 t is a big and difficult job—

Mr. Vaz: How long?

Mr. Maples: 1 shall deal with the question of how long in a moment.
The scale of the problem means that it is a big and difficult job. We do not know how many depositors there are, but as there are certainly several thousand, it will be a substantial job. Again, I hope that the banks will look at that matter sympathetically and that it will be possible to construct such a scheme.
On the question of a timetable, the deposit protection board cannot be activated until a winding-up order has been made by the courts. The moment that the Bank has a provisional winding-up order, there is a statutory minimum period of 15 days before the application can be made, although an expedited hearing has been applied for. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we and the Bank will do everything that we can to ensure that that hearing takes place as soon as possible. Immediately the hearing is held,

the deposit protection board will announce the procedures for making claims and, again, we shall try to ensure that the claims are processed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Patrick Ground: In conjunction with the Department of Employment, will my hon. Friend look into the issue of work permits for this and other foreign banks in this country? Will he pay particular heed to the representations that have been made on the subject by employees in the banking industry?

Mr. Maples: I am not quite sure what point my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to make, but I shall ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment are aware of what he said. My understanding is that foreign employees who have work permits from banks are in exactly the same position as foreign employees on work permits from any other organisation. I am sure that they will be treated similarly.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister said that there have been rumours about BCCI for some time. Has it slipped his mind that BCCI was successfully prosecuted in the United States for laundering drug money on a massive scale? Does he accept that, while reservations about BCCI might have been common knowledge in City establishments, they could not have been known by the small investors and the small business men, many of whom are Asian, who put their money into that bank in good faith? Will he now answer the question that he was asked earlier about the Bangladeshi cyclone relief fund? Does he accept that the arrangements that he has outlined for helping small business men are not adequate and that the regulatory bodies have failed and now owe a responsibility to the people who are facing bankruptcy because of mismanagement and misaccounting?

Mr. Maples: I am sorry that I omitted to deal with the Bangladeshi cyclone relief fund earlier. It is in exactly the same position as any other depositor. It will receive compensation—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh, no.") Well, I do not think that it would be right for the Bank of England or the Government to have to pick and choose between the relative merits of different depositors. I understand from what I have read in the newspapers that the sum involved is about £50,000. The fund will be entitled to £15,000 compensation and will then rank as an unsecured creditor, along with the others, in the liquidation. It is far too early to have any idea what, if anything, those depositors will receive, but I hope that there will be some payment for them out of the liquidation.
I turn now to the question whether the Bank of England should have known about this matter earlier. The hon. Lady cited the case of the two people who worked at a branch in Florida and were prosecuted. Under American law, companies are vicariously liable for the criminal activities of their employees in a way that they are not in this country. On that basis, the bank was also prosecuted and pleaded guilty. As I understand it, there is no connection with those who are responsible for running the bank's affairs in the United Kingdom, so the information was not thought sufficient for taking the matter further. I also point out that those convictions took place at the beginning of last year—not all that long ago.

Sir Peter Hordern: Was it wise to allow the bank to open retail branches? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the degree of co-operation among European central bankers on the matter? Should there not be a full inquiry?

Mr. Maples: I am satisfied with the degree of co-operation among European central banks—that is what has brought the matter to its present conclusion. When the supervisory European authorities—some of them central banks, some of them different authorities—became aware of the problem, they acted quickly, within a week, to achieve the result that we now have.
We can discuss whether the bank should have been allowed to open so many branches, but when it started business it was authorised in Luxembourg and, as I understand it, the Bank of England had no powers to stop it opening branches here. Under subsequent legislation, the extent of the bank's activities was restricted because it was felt that the group was too complex and was opening branches too fast.
My hon. Friend asked a third question, but I cannot remember what it was.

Sir Peter Hordern: A full inquiry.

Mr. Maples: Our first priority is to get an orderly rundown of the group's affairs under way. Further investigations are being carried out by the Bank and presumably considerable further investigations will be undertaken by the liquidator. As I have said, the papers have been passed to the Serious Fraud Office, which will investigate the possibility of criminal prosecutions. It is far too early to say whether we need to go further.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Minister aware that, when the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee visited the bank regulators, including the Governor of the Bank of England, four or five years ago, I told them that, if they looked into BCCI's books, they would find a financial cesspit, only to be met with the reply, "You are aware, Mr. Sedgemore, that this is not a British bank." Does that not suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with bank supervision?

Mr. Maples: I do not know what facts the hon. Gentleman has to back up that assertion, but if he had facts and he presented them—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is in the habit of making unsubstantiated assertions in the House and I should not be surprised if he did so at the Bank of England as well. I am sure that if he had had substance to back up his allegation, the Bank of England supervisors would have investigated.
The situation was complicated because BCCI operated in several countries, but with regard to the operation in England, the Bank of England had the necessary powers to act. As soon as it was satisfied that it had the evidence to justify taking such action, it took it.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that two questions out of many arise? One concerns the deposit protection scheme. Bearing in mind the fact that many small traders and depositors are at risk, if the money can be reclaimed later, should we not, as as matter of urgency, at least help those people in the short term?
The second question is about the problem caused by the fact that any bank that opens in Europe under European

regulations can open a branch here at any time and at its will. As the European schemes are all different, before we allow foreign banks to open here, which means that money can come and go without the Bank of England knowing where it is, should we not make certain that all our regulations are the same? Otherwise, fraud can take place, as we have seen time after time.

Mr. Maples: The problem in this case went well beyond Europe, but part of the second banking co-ordination directive, to which I believe my hon. Friend refers, whereby a bank authorised in one EC country can open branches in others, aims to ensure that common standards of prudential supervision are established. There is already close co-operation among the supervisory authorities and my hon. Friend is right that it is important to ensure that that part of the arrangements is in place, to ensure common supervisory standards.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems of small customers—both businesses and depositors. I have described the arrangements that the Bank of England, the liquidator and the high street banks are trying to put into operation. There is no point in repeating what I said, but I hope that those arrangements will be possible. If they are, it will be a considerable help to those two groups of customers. The deposit protection board will be activated very shortly—as soon as the winding-up order is obtained.
I cannot give a timetable for that. I have said that it would be difficult—although perhaps not impossible—to have a hearing within two weeks, but I certainly hope that the deposit protection board arrangements will be activated very shortly.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have some dates? Can the Minister tell us when Price Waterhouse was first aware of irregularities, whether the Department of Trade and Industry was informed and on what date, and on what date the Bank of England was first informed of irregularities?

Mr. Maples: The Bank of England obtains information in respect of banking supervision which it then has to treat with considerable confidentiality. It is not open to the Bank of England simply to give the information out to people unless there is legitimate cause, and the person receiving the information then becomes subject to the same sanction. As far as I know, therefore, there was no communication to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the information was received. As I said, the Bank of England received Price Waterhouse's report disclosing the extensive fraud at the end of the week before last—about 10 days ago.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have more than 144 Lords amendments to debate this afternoon. I therefore ask hon. Members to ask brief questions and not to repeat questions that have been asked before.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Has it not been apparent for some time that those who deposited money with the bank needed their heads testing? It is only because the Government changed the laws governing banking in 1987 that the Bank of England could investigate and close down BCCI and that the auditors were able to deliver important information about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, so far from our needing to increase the


compensation due to depositors, the sum is quite adequate for the large range of small depositors, and that the larger depositors should have known better?

Mr. Maples: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that there is any reason to believe that the Bank's supervisory arrangements and powers under the 1987 Act are inadequate.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What can the Minister say to the House about the link between BCCI and Barlow Clowes on which, as he will know, there has been some sharp public comment? When did his Department and/or the Department of Trade and Industry know of that obviously very disturbing link, and also the Bank of England?

Mr. Maples: These are two different cases. What unites them is that large amounts of money were stolen in both instances. I do not think that there will ever be a system of bank supervision that will stop sophisticated frauds taking place. One hopes that one can limit the incidence of frauds by trying to ensure that only suitable people run banks, that their affairs are properly audited and that proper supervisory powers are in place. I am afraid, however, that it will not be possible completely to eliminate fraud, and in this case the fraud was extremely sophisticated and complex.

Sir Ian Stewart: Having introduced the Banking Act 1987, may I, through my hon. Friend, commend the Bank of England on the way in which it conducted its role on the international scene in bringing this unfortunate matter to a head? Does my hon. Friend recognise, however, that there are genuine concerns about the fact that a bank whose management and business have widely been known to be in a mess for such a long time should have been able to remain in business for so long?
Will my hon. Friend look again at the provisions of the banking legislation which make it automatic that authorisation in one member state of the European Community is effective in every other member state—irrespective of the fact that, in this case, it was clear that the authorisation procedures in Luxembourg were inadequate to deal with the bank?

Mr. Maples: Under the second banking co-ordination directive—as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)—it will be important to ensure that those common standards of supervision are in place. That is an essential ingredient of the arrangements and I do not think that it would be satisfactory simply to allow branch banking on the basis of a home country passport unless we were all satisfied with each other's standards of supervision.
I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about the conduct of the Bank of England in this matter are passed to it, and I am sure that those concerned will be happy to hear them.
As to my hon. Friend's strictures on the way in which the bank has operated in the past, I must point out that, although there has been a good deal of rumour, there has not been very much fact, and it is not possible for the Bank of England to operate on anything other than evidence. If the Bank decides to exercise the draconian powers conferred on it in the Banking Act 1987 to put a bank into liquidation or revoke its licence, its decisions are subject to

appeal to a banking appellate body and it has to be able to justify its decision by reference to hard evidence. The Bank acted as soon as it felt that it had that evidence.

Mr. Bob Cryer: But is the Minister telling us that anyone can come to Britain with a bank from Luxembourg and rip off depositors without any intervention from the Bank of England? As it has become clear from comments in the Chamber that a large number of people had informed the Bank of England, the Bank of England must have been aware of BCCI's shortcomings, so why was no action taken? Does the Minister agree that it would be handy if the depositors who are being short-changed as a result of this fraudulent operation sued the accountants—whose attention the complexity of the fraud apparently escaped because of their incompetence or complicity?

Mr. Maples: That is a travesty of the facts. It is not for me to comment on the accountants' role in the matter. I am sure that they are more than capable of defending themselves—and no doubt if the hon. Gentleman repeats his remarks outside the House, he will find that they do so.
On the question of small depositors being ripped off. I repeat that there are compensation arrangements, which. I have already described, under the deposit protection fund arrangements.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Peanuts.

Mr. Maples: I do not think that £15,000 is peanuts. Anything under £20,000 should be compensated. That decision was taken by the House deliberately to protect small depositors. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I do not think that it will ever be possible to institute supervisory arrangements that preclude any chance of complicated, sophisticated fraud taking place.

Mr. Iain Mills: May I ask my hon. Friend a simple question? As a result of the Bank of England's decision, the high street banks will have to provide large sums of money under the protection scheme. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that will not affect those banks' policies towards other small businesses that they fund locally in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not see why that business should be affected, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are communicated to those concerned. Any funds that the banks have to advance to the deposit protection board are recoverable out of any proceeds available on liquidation and one therefore hopes that funding that they might have to provide to the deposit protection fund will be by way of a loan. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's point is communicated to the Bank of England.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Liberal Democrats join hon. Members on both sides of the House who have urged the Minister to take further steps, particularly to help those small Asian businesses threatened by bankruptcy at present—not least because Lord Harris, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, raised his concern about BCCI on an unstarred question more than a year ago. No action proceeded from that. Does the Minister agree that, in view of the obvious failure to stop the fraud taking place and in view of the long timescale in which concerns were being expressed—particularly from


the Liberal Democrat Benches—it would be appropriate to have a full independent inquiry into why the Banking Act appears to have failed in this case?

Mr. Maples: The points made by Lord Harris in the other place were to do with the prosecutions in Florida of those involved in laundering drug money. Lord Harris made no suggestion that a complex fraud was taking place at the bank; that came to light only very recently.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was appropriate to have an inquiry. As I said, the priority at the money is to ensure that an orderly running down of the bank's affairs gets under way. That is the priority of the Bank, the liquidators and, I hope, the shareholders. The Bank, the liquidators and the Serious Fraud Office will be conducting further investigations. There is already a lot on the agenda and it is too early to decide whether it is necessary to do anything else.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry the BCCI insurance group, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of BCCI? As the DTI, a Government Department, is the regulator of that company, will he have some conversations with it, if he has not already done so, and seek to reassure the House that BCCI insurance group's investors—many of them, in all probability, the same people who had investments with the bank—are secure?

Mr. Maples: The Bank has communicated the grounds for its action to the DTI, and it is in that Department's power and up to it to decide what to do about the associated insurance company. I am sure that it will take whatever action is appropriate under its regulatory powers to protect the interests of customers and clients of that insurance company.

Mr. Peter Hain: This is a case in which the Government have watched with abject complacency while a group of shady bankers walked off with millions of pounds of ordinary people's money. Yet those who indulge in what in south Wales is called "hobbling"—topping up one's benefit with a tenner or so from gardening—immediately invite the attentions of fraud officers. Why are the Government so keen to regulate and prosecute the poor while they are so indifferent to a proper regulatory mechanism for the financial world?

Mr. Maples: It seems to me that we spend half our time in this House discussing regulatory arrangements for the financial world. What the hon. Gentleman describes is not recognisably the position with which we are dealing. I said that the papers had been passed to the Serious Fraud Office. It seems clear from the evidence that serious criminal offences have taken place. If so, the people responsible will undoubtedly be brought to justice.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that many successful businesses, including many in Leeds, which are financed by borrowings from BCCI, will now look to other bankers to set up new financial arrangements and will have heard with interest my hon. Friend's comments today? One problem they face is that their assets are charged to BCCI. Will my hon. Friend ensure

that the liquidator acts promptly to implement any change in banking arrangements made by those companies so that they can survive?

Mr. Maples: I said that certain technicalities had to be ironed out to enable the arrangements to be put into effect. The point that my hon. Friend made is one of them. It may be necessary for the new bank to advance to its new clients sufficient money to discharge the debt to BCCI and thereby have the security released so that it can be charged to the new bank. Alternatively, it may be necessary for the new bank to put a second charge on those assets. That is a technicality which needs to be ironed out I am sure that the liquidators and the banks will address that problem constructively. I hope that that will result in the type of action that I have described.

Mr. Alan Williams: In which year was the £15,000 figure felt to be adequate? What would be the equivalent real value of that money today? Will the Minister confirm that, if the figure was set in 1987, the figure now would be nearer £20,000 and that, if is was set in 1979, it would be over £30,000? As adequacy seems to be the criterion, would not it have been logical for the figure to reflect changes in the value of money?

Mr. Maples: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the date on which the figure was set. It would have been since and under the powers of the Banking Act 1987, so the figure would certainly have been set during the past four years. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know when it was set.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not the case that, although many people said that BCCI was dodgy, obtaining hard evidence was difficult? Is it not also the case that, of the 69 countries in which the bank operated, including its home base of Luxembourg, it was Britain which finally uncovered the serious fraud? Does not ultimate responsibility for helping depositors lie with, not British taxpayers but the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, whose large shareholding in BCCI instilled the confidence in it without which BCCI would not have been able to operate on the scale that it did?

Mr. Maples: I am sure that the Bank of England will be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the role that it played in the international supervision of the bank. It put together the college and, as he said, uncovered a fraud. The shareholder to whom my hon. Friend refers has a constructive record with the bank. He has injected additional capital on several occasions. As I said, representatives of the shareholders, the Bank of England, the liquidator, the Abu Dhabi Government and the United Arab Emirates central bank are meeting this evening. It remains to be seen what will come our of those discussions.

Dr. John Reid: May we return to the question of dates and in particular what the Minister knew and when? The Minister said that the report with some conclusions was presented 10 days ago. Can he confirm the statements made at the end of last week that there was hard evidence aroung the beginning of the year and, as we have heard today, suspicions and rumours for a considerable period before that? Can he tell us exactly when Price Waterhouse first alerted the Bank of England and/or the Department of Trade and Industry that there


were prima facie grounds for suspicion and an investigation? When was the first time that Price Waterhouse told either of those bodies?

Mr. Maples: There certainly were rumours such as the hon. Gentleman describes about BCCI, but few were substantiated by any fact.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Some of them were.

Mr. Maples: I will come to the point—[Interruption.] As far as I know, none of the rumours was substantiated by the sort of facts that would be required to enable the Bank of England to act. The facts which eventually came to light and the grounds on which the Bank has acted were evidence of a sophisticated and complex fraud which was not part of the rumours and which, by its nature, could not be evidence of rumour. A new officer of the bank told the Bank of England that she thought that there were some strange goings-on and unrecorded transactions in the bank at the beginning of this year. Very shortly afterwards, Price Waterhouse was asked by the Bank of England to conduct an investigation. As I said, it reported to the Bank of England about 10 or 12 days ago. The Bank acted within about eight days of receiving that report.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend may know that one of the unusual characteristics of this bank is its considerable international network of banking branches, notably in Africa, and that in some of those countries it is a large player in the local commercial banking market. Could he perhaps bring it to the attention of the Bank of England and the other international regulatory authorities that in winding up the institution they should do their utmost to avoid damage to growing private enterprise in such countries and to local economies?

Mr. Maples: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the Bank of England will also hear what he says. The lead liquidator is the liquidator of the holding company in Luxembourg—Touche Ross. The liquidators in the various other countries are—perhaps this is not a proper, technical, legal description—their agents. The Bank of England is fully occupied with looking after matters in Britain and with the depositors and customers of the business here, who were referred to in other questions. However, I am sure that the bank will have heard what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was it not a little more than rumours—to go back to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)? Was not the issue raised in questions from the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan? That should have alerted the authorities. Will the Minister clearly confirm that Price Waterhouse told the Bank at the beginning of the year? What did he mean in his answer to my hon. Friend when he referred to "strange goings-on"? Could he explain that phrase? If there were strange goings-on in the bank, is it not odd that there was such a lack of curiosity on the part of the Government?

Mr. Maples: I went on to say that there were unrecorded transactions. Immediately after that was reported, drastic action was taken which has resulted in the bank being put into liquidation.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware that BCCI appears on the Bank of England's list of approved banks for investment. Will he consider the position of the 10 local authorities which have substantial investments in the bank? What priority will be given to them when they require funds for local authority services?

Mr. Maples: One clearly appreciates and sympathises with the difficulties in which any depositors find themselves. However, I am afraid that, in the liquidation, large depositors such as the local authorities to which he referred will rank as unsecured creditors, alongside the other depositors. They will be entitled to £15,000 compensation from the deposit protection fund if they meet the relevant criteria. I hope that the liquidation will result in some pay-out to those depositors, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to make special arrangements for one group of depositors.
It would be invidious for the bank, the Government, or, for that matter, the liquidators to choose on some grounds of objective merit between categories of depositors. There are only two categories. There are small depositors who will receive perhaps the bulk of their money back—up to £15,000. Larger depositors will also receive £15,000, but for them it will represent a much smaller percentage of their deposit.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Don't this Government ever learn? In September 1984, a similar incident occurred with Johnson Matthey. Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), raised the matter. We raised the very question of whether auditors and accountants should act as whistle-blowers in order to let the people and the Government know about banks which were still touting for custom when they had almost gone down the pan. Yet here we are seven years later with a repeat exercise of almost the same thing that happened then. The truth is that this bank would not have been told by the Bank of England to stop trading if it had not been for the Americans—just like in the Guinness scandal—realising that it was uncomfortable and sensitive for them with the drugs scandal and Noriega and deciding to tell the British Government that they had better pull their finger out. That is the reason why the bank was closed.

Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman suggested at the time of the Johnson Matthey scandal that auditors should be allowed to blow the whistle on their clients, it must be one of the few constructive suggestions that he has made in the House. It must be of some satisfaction to him that his suggestion was acted on and that, in the Banking Act 1987, auditors were given the power to do exactly that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the questions on the statement I am sure that you noticed the repeated suggestion from my hon. Friends and Conservative Members that something major was wrong with the bank. I wonder how it is possible then that Conservative Members did not exert pressure on the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who has been an adviser to that bank for years?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day — Road Traffic Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 5

DISAPPLICATION OF SECTIONS 1 TO 3 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 FOR AUTHORISED MOTORING EVENTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 15 after "be" insert "included among those"

5 pm

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Chope: These are technical amendments to the clause which disapplies sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for authorised motoring events in public places.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

After clause 19

Lords amendment: No. 3, to insert the following new clause—Exception from requirement of third-party insurance—

(".—(1) Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third-party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for "£15,000" there shall be substituted "£500,000".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.
(1B) No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament." ")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment responds to concerns expressed in the House on behalf of the Motor Insurers Bureau—the guarantee fund, funded by the insurance industry—which provides for the victims of uninsured and untraced drivers.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I understand that this amendment is the Government's response to pressure from their Back Benchers who tabled amendments on Report, which were not debated.
Have the Government sought simply to increase the sum of money required? It is not clear to us why the provisions should exist at all, and the Minister has not made it clear today. We believe that it would have been better to remove the provision altogether.

Mr. Chope: The Government believe that it is reasonable to allow some organisations—for example, the Automobile Association—to place a deposit rather than have to take out a specific insurance for their risks. That has been the position since 1930, and there has not been a single occasion since when someone operating in that way

has not been able to meet his debts. That is the rationale behind the amendment. The sum has not been increased since 1930, and we believe that it is now time to increase it and to take powers to increase it further by affirmative order should that be necessary.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We welcome the fact that the sum has been increased considerably and that powers will exist to increase it further. Given that undertaking, we will support the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

INTERIM DISQUALIFICATION

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 22, leave out lines 6 to 14.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 5.

Mr. Chope: The amendment simply clarifies the effect of a period of interim disqualification on the length of disqualification which is ordered on sentence.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Clause 26

PENALTY POINTS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 23, line 31, after "offence" insert
in the last column of Part I

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 81.

Mr. Chope: These technical amendments result from the change to the penalty points attributable to offences that involve obligatory disqualifications.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33

CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 34, line 20, leave out ("75(6)(a)") and insert ("75(8)(a)").

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment corrects a drafting error.

Question put and agreed to.

Before Clause 34

Lords amendment: No. 8, to insert the following new clause—Disabled persons' badges—

(".—(1) Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below.
(2) For subsections (2) and (3) there shall be substituted—

(2) A badge may be issued to a disabled person of any prescribed description resident in the area of the issuing authority for one or more vehicles driven by him or used by him as a passenger.

(3) In subsection (4), the words "and any badge" onwards shall be omitted.
(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—

"(4A) A badge issued under this section may be displayed only in such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4B) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988) at a time when a badge of a form prescribed under this section is displayed on the vehicle is guilty of an offence unless the badge is issued under this section and displayed in accordance with regulations made under it.
(4C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4B) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

(5) In subsection (5), the words "and in the case" onwards shall be omitted.
(6) In section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (wrongful use of disabled person's badge) for subsections (1) and (2) there shall be substituted—

"(1) A person who at any time acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any provision of an order under this Act relating to the parking of motor vehicles is also guilty of an offence under this section if at that time—

(a) there was displayed on the motor vehicle in question a badge of a form prescribed under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and
(b) he was using the vehicle in circumstances where a disabled person's concession would be available to a disabled person's vehicle,


but he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if the badge was issued under that section and displayed in accordance with regulations made under it.".")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will also be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 53, 92, 130 and 137.

Mr. Chope: The amendment responds to concerns expressed in this place and in Committee in another place about the misuse of the orange badge scheme, particularly by able-bodied people. There is a problem in enforcing the existing offence, because section 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 depends upon the fraudulent use of a disabled person's parking concession. The amendment is intended to supplement the existing offence to enhance the deterrent effect.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The orange badge scheme derives from clause 21 of my private Member's Bill which became law as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The scheme now benefits more than 1 million disabled people. For many of them the scheme has meant all the difference between seeing only their own four walls, day by day, and independent living worthy of the name.
That there would be abuse of the scheme was argued when I first proposed it in 1970. My view then, as now, was that the scale of any abuse depends, to no small extent, on the severity of penalties for abusing the scheme and the effectiveness or otherwise of their enforcement.
This important Lords amendment should lead to more effective enforcement of the penalties available for dealing with abuse. It should lead to fewer allegations of abuse and to an environment in which the benefits conferred by the

scheme can be developed and improved. The amendment is therefore one of very considerable importance and will be widely welcomed here as it was in another place.
I pay tribute today to the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People on its work to secure the amendment, and also to the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, the Disabled Drivers Association and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation for their extremely well-informed briefing on the working of the scheme.
Can the Minister tell the House when we shall be given an implementation date for the Government's proposed more extensive changes to the orange badge scheme, including the introduction of a passport-style badge? Is he aware of the very deep concern that has been caused by the growing practice of towing away disabled people's vehicles, even where no hazard is involved? Clamping of their vehicles is not allowed, but should the Minister not be acting urgently to stop the towing away of vehicles in cases where the disabled person can be left totally immobile on the street?
In another place, an amendment was moved to end any linkage between the pay of traffic wardens and the number of tickets they issue. That amendment did not succeed, and it is now widely felt that, in consequence, linkage between pay and the number of tickets issued by a traffic warden has been given some legitimacy. What are the Minister's comments on this issue, which, as he will know, is of considerable importance to disabled people as to other drivers?
Will the Minister also make it clear that the aim of public policy in regard to the scheme must not be to reduce the number of beneficiaries, but to ensure that there are sufficient penalties for abuse and the power to enforce them? Again, I welcome the action taken in the Lords, and pay tribute to all who have been concerned in framing the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on his part in introducing the orange badge scheme in the first place. As well as the committees that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I am sure that the House would also want to recognise the work of the Department of Transport statutory advisory committee to the Secretary of State, and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, its chairman Sir Peter Baldwin and committee members.
About six years ago, I had the pleasure of travelling around the Netherlands with a civil servant, Neville Rees, who has done a great deal of work on the orange-badge scheme. I am sure that the House would wish him comfort in his present state of discomfort.
The House would welcome a word from my hon. Friend the Minister about whether we can expect further action outside the legislation. We would also welcome his comments on the points raised on the new clause.
As well as the problem of abuse, there is the problem that many people do not understand how vital it is that the orange badge should be issued to those who need it most. I hope that issuing authorities will not feel that they are doing anyone a favour by loosening the criteria for which an orange badge is designed. It is critical for those who cannot move more than about 50 m without it, and is not designed for those people for whom it will simply make shopping more convenient. If we reach the stage of


degradation when 5, 10 or 15 per cent. of the population can have a badge, its use to those who are virtually immobile, or who need a wheelchair to become mobile, becomes diminished.
When the scheme was introduced, the problem of how to stop it becoming too slack or being abused was discussed. Without wishing to appear unsympathetic to those with other kinds of handicap, the orange badge means most to those who need to be driven as passengers or to drive themselves, to be as close as possible to their place of work or their shops or to visit people in other services or businesses.
I hope that my remarks will be conveyed through my hon. Friend the Minister to the disabled transport unit of the Department and to those in the private and voluntary sectors who came together to make the Mobility road show at Crowthorne such a glorious success. The Department's response to the International Year of the Disabled and the way in which Ann Frye and her team have done so much are a tribute to the partnerships between the statutory and the voluntary, and the extra-statutory and the committed in the private sector. I also welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), whose work for the disabled has done a great deal to put the Conservative party on a par with the individual efforts of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who did so much when he was a Minister.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I had the pleasure of moving several amendments for disabled organisations at the Committee stage, when I asked many questions about the rights of disabled badge owners on red routes. Will all disabled badge holders have the right to stop and park on existing red routes and those that will be introduced in the future? There is only one red route at present but I understand that more will be introduced. Will the orange badge become universal throughout the country? Some London boroughs, such as Westminster and Kensington, do not observe the scheme.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I should like to add to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about the importance of orange badges for disabled people who could not otherwise get out of their homes and carry on their work or participate in other activities in the community.
The scheme's problems are caused by its success. There are now more than a million orange badge holders, and in my borough there are now 8,000. That represents 4 per cent. of the adult population, which is rather more than the figure of approximately 3 per cent. for the whole country, so the scheme seems to be more successful in Bolton than elsewhere. However, that brings its problems, and the people of Bolton are concerned about those who abuse the scheme and use the badges when they should not do so. In the past week, there has been a front page story in the newspaper about the concern felt in my area.
I thoroughly agree that local authorities need to crack down much harder on that abuse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear to local authorities that they should act strongly, and give them more powers if necessary.
At a recent Motability scheme meeting, I was shocked to hear that junk shops in Blackpool have been selling bogus orange badges. That shows the extent to which the abuse is growing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into any abuse on that scale. It seems to be a sick joke that anyone should attempt to sell the badges in that way. One also hears of second-hand cars being sold for a higher price if there is an orange badge in the car.
The best way to crack down on such abuse is to have a photograph in the orange badge. I was pleased to see a specimen of a new type of orange badge, which I understand that my hon. Friend intends to introduce. It will have a photograph inside it, which will stop people using it when it does not belong to them. Everyone to whom I have spoken about the new-style badge has said that it is very good, and I look forward to its introduction. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any reason for delaying its introduction further. If so, I hope that he can overcome any problems and introduce it as soon as possible.
5.15 pm
The restriction of the issue of orange badges presents many problems. It would be wrong simply to restrict them to those who receive a mobility allowance. It would reduce the numbers, because only 670,000 people now receive mobility allowance, but that number will increase with the new disability living allowance, under which there are two categories of mobility allowance. We must be careful how we restrict the number of badges issued.
It is proposed that the present wording, which says that the badge should be issued to those who experience
very considerable difficulty in walking",
should be changed to those who experience "extreme difficulty in walking". I presume that that still leaves a great deal of discretion to general practitioners in interpreting it. We must be careful not to restrict the badge in such a way that those who have a reasonable degree of movement will be prevented from going out and playing an active role in society.
It is no use our saying that people can go out, if they are not in a fit state to go out anyway. Rather, those who can go out and make good use of their mobility should be encouraged to do so. Therefore, I do not support any draconian measure to limit orange badges to a small number of people. A year ago, there was an outcry when it was suggested that thalidomide victims should be denied orange badges. That shows that we must be careful how we interpret the measure.
I received a note from a constituent who suggested that the issuing of orange badges should be linked to a computer index run by the registrar of deaths, so that, when people died, they would automatically have the orange badge removed. Otherwise, the deceased person's family may be tempted to continue to use it, or his or her car may be innocently sold with the orange badge still in it.
Equally, people who have successful operations—for example, on their hips—may become fully mobile again but be reluctant to give up their badge. Although, in the first few months, they may feel unsure of the success of their operation, once it is clear that they are fully mobile, they should give up their orange badge and not be tempted to continue to use it.
I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister pressing ahead with his proposals. I particularly look forward to his


new-style orange badge coming into effect, and hope that the scheme's success will continue to grow, but with some limit on the numbers.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to all those who have participated in this short debate for supporting the amendment. It is obvious that, if we are to have such a scheme, it must be properly enforced and those who try to avoid the regulations must be subject to deterrent penalties. That is the great virtue of the amendment.
I share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the need to ensure that the scheme is not unduly restricted. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to reduce its scope. When he first introduced the scheme, he predicted that some 30,000 people would benefit, I understand that, at the end of last year, no fewer than 1,160,000 people were benefiting from it. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else must be delighted with that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may remember that, in 1969–70, we were very uninformed about the numbers and needs of diabled people. I was arguing the case of the organisations of and for disabled people who wanted a national orange badge scheme. We appreciated that it would have to be phased in to ensure proper administration. I had no doubt that more than 30,000 people would ultimately benefit from what all the organisations of and for disabled people now regard as an important aid to independent living.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining that. I am not sure whether he was predicting that more than 1 million people would benefit from the scheme, but that is certainly the position today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to a distinguished member of the Department of Transport, Neville Rees. I saw Neville last week; he is as well as can be expected in the circumstances and is enjoying reading the latest best seller, "Gridlock", an appropriate title for someone working in the Department of Transport to read.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) referred to red routes, as he did several times in Committee. There are no concessions involving the red lines themselves, but, as a result of the red routes, we shall be able to provide more loading bays where, with appropriate signing, disabled people will be able to park. One benefit of the pilot scheme is that it will now be possible for people visiting Moorfields eye hospital to park outside it, which they were unable to do under the old regime.
The debate has, understandably, ranged wider than the amendment, but I hope that I shall be able to introduce regulations to deal with the passport-style badge in the not-too-distant future. While the Government are absolutely committed to the introduction of a passport-style badge, they want to try to ensure the maximum consensus on the other amendments to the scheme.
Some people are worried that, as expressed at present, the proposals could result in a number of people with orange badges finding that they were unable to renew them when necessary. I am sure that, due to the scheme's popularity and the extra mobility it affords, if we were to adopt such proposals, we should do so only when we fully understood the implications of doing so. I am

reconsidering that issue at present, and next week I have a meeting with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, when it will be on the agenda.

Mr. Fearn: The Minister will recollect that I asked about the authorities that do not observe the orange badge scheme. Has he any proposals for them?

Mr. Chope: That must follow on from the review of the scheme. In the other place, Lord Boyd-Carpenter explained, in a form that was well understood by their Lordships, the difficulties faced by a borough in the centre of London when administering a scheme where, prima facie, more than 1 million people with orange badges would be able to park on the streets. Some central London boroughs have experienced that difficulty—Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster and parts of Camden. I know that we are in discussion with those councils, but I cannot promise that those discussions have reached a final and successful conclusion—much will depend on the final form. I assure the House that our commitment to introduce a passport-style badge is absolute.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be aware of the efforts of the parliamentary committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the secretary of which is my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). In his further considerations, will my hon. Friend the Minister give serious thought to cases where there is a dispute between those who are most severely handicapped in mobility terms and those who are somewhat handicapped? Will he ensure that the needs of the most severely handicapped are always taken into account, and, if it comes to a choice between the two levels of need, where necessary, priority is given to those who need help most?

Mr. Chope: I think that what my hon. Friend is saying is that the person making the decision should have the wisdom of Solomon. I hope that that will be so.

Question put and agreed to.

After clause 38

Lords amendment: No. 9, to insert the following new clause—Variation of charges at off-street parking places—
(".After section 35B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted—

35C.—(1) Where an order under section 35(1)(iii) of this Act makes provision as to the charges to be paid in connection with the use of off-street parking places, the authority making that order may vary those charges by notice given under this section.
(2) The variation of any such charges by notice is not to be taken to prejudice any power to vary those charges by order under section 35 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed by any local authority giving notice under this section.
(4) the regulations may, in particular, make provision with respect to—

(a) the publication, where an authority propose to give notice, of details of their proposal;
(b) the form and manner in which notice is to be given; and
(c) the publication of notices.
(5) In giving any notice under this section a local authority shall comply with the regulations." ")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment adds a new clause and introduces a further section into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.


The new section has the same effect as that provided by clause 39, except that it applies to variations of charges of off-street parking places. It has been introduced in response to a request from the local authority associations.

Question put and agreed to.

After Clause 39

Lords amendment: No. 10, to insert the following new clause—Permitted and special parking areas outside London

(".—(1) Schedule (Permitted and special parking areas outside London) shall have effect for the purpose of making provision with respect to areas outside London corresponding to that made with respect to London, and areas within London, under sections 57 to 69 of this Act.
(2) In this section "London" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of this Act.")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 82.

Mr. Chope: When we last debated the parking provisions of the Bill in this House, I said that the Government would introduce amendments in the other place to allow for specified, non-endorsable parking offences to be decriminalised in specially designated districts of London, and to be enforced by local authority parking attendants. Amendments were introduced in Committee in the other place which now appear as amendments Nos. 72 and 73. They will enable my right hon. Friend, on application by a London authority, to make an order decriminalising specified parking offences in the district to which the order relates. Those areas will be known as special parking areas.
The first of the two new clauses introduced by the amendments specifies the offences to be decriminalised. It enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the police and the relevant local authority associations, to add to the list of decriminalised offences to apply in special parking areas. If my right hon. Friend is made aware of further offences that could be covered by the parking area orders, subject to consultation with the police and the local authorities the list of decriminalised offences may be added to without the need for further primary legislation.
The second new clause applies the provisions of the new system of penalty charges developed for the enforcement of permitted parking in London to the decriminalised offences within the special parking areas. The London authorities will have extended powers to wheel clamp and remove vehicles in the special parking areas. There is a power for the Secretary of State to modify in the order any of the provisions of part II of the Bill in respect of their application in special parking area.
The principle of the amendments was widely welcomed when it was discussed in the House, and the amendments were given a similar reception in the other place. The Government were therefore pleased to respond to calls to consider the issues involved with the provision of a general enabling power providing for extension to other parts of the country of the new arrangements for permitted parking and special parking areas in London. Our considerations

led us to conclude that such an enabling power was both possible and desirable. The amendments, which were carried in the other place, now appear as Nos. 10 and 82.

Ms. Ruddock: We regard the amendments as extremely important. They provide for highway authorities outside London to have an additional tool to use in their efforts to deal with the growing problems of congestion and environmental difficulties brought about by illegal parking. The fact that the Government introduced the amendments in the other place shows what an effective Opposition working in conjunction with representative organisations can do to influence the shape of legislation.
It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's decision to amend the Bill in this way, but it would also be wrong not to remind the House that in Committee and on Report the Government strongly resisted Opposition amendments designed to have a similar effect. The Government's change of heart is particularly welcome to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which has been pressing for the change for six years in the face of what it regarded as unhelpful conclusions in the report of the Home Office working party on enforcement, unfruitful meetings with Ministers and strong ministerial resistance during the earlier stages of the Bill.
However, we should like to move forward, not backward. In moving the amendments in the other place, the Minister—Lord Brabazon of Tara—said that while the Government envisaged experience being gained in London they took advantage of the powers in relation to authorities outside London. That approach appears to have merit, but while the general adoption of powers outside London should not take place before there has been some experience in the capital, we believe that there would be considerable merit in some authorities outside London also being given the go-ahead, so that experience could be gained in other areas on a pilot basis.
That suggestion was made on Report in another place, when the Minister said:
I said in my speech that probably we would wish to see the experiment in London before other authorities in the country try to implement the provisions. That is our opinion at the moment. However, if any local authorities outside London wish to come forward with schemes, we shall be very willing to discuss them, provided that the police are also satisfied with the proposals. That is an important proviso.
5.30 pm
In the light of those remarks, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is currently discussing with its members the scope for a number of them to volunteer as guinea pigs in the deployment of powers outside London. Proposals for such trials are likely to be submitted to the Department later this year, and we hope that Ministers will be keen to discuss them positively with the association and the authorities involved.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: About six years ago, some local authorities in London and elsewhere were rather more loopy and left-wing than they are today. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) commented fairly that the Home Office was not the first to be convinced that this was a sensible concept.
One of the problems of enforcement for the police was that they did not receive the recycled receipts in respect of penalties imposed on those motorists who parked in the wrong place, or who stayed too long at a parking meter. Today, we have in effect a net cost regime, whereby some


of the income from penalties can be used towards the cost of enforcement. Without wanting to break the Treasury rule against hypothecation, there are great benefits to be gained from effective enforcement, which are shared by the motorist trying to find somewhere to park legally. We know that Westminster, for example, declares a £3 million gain from effective enforcement.
I personally believe that effective parking control leads to a reduction in unnecessary traffic. One finds fewer people driving around trying to find a space to park where there are yellow lines because they know that if they do so effective enforcement will bring the consequences of inconvenience and expense. One finds also that fewer people occupy a meter for half a day or more, because they know that an attendant will soon be along to impose a penalty if they overstay their time. The balance of convenience is outweighed by greater enforcement.
I support the hon. Member for Deptford in her remarks about pilot schemes outside London. Experience in London will not always be duplicated elsewhere. There are many towns and cities where it would be possible to run experimental schemes with the agreement of the local police and of the Home Office.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the pragmatic way in which he has advanced matters. Motorists have the most to gain from a stricter system of parking enforcement. Road pricing would be a daft way of achieving the same ends. We ought to emphasise that, for people who earn a great deal of money, sitting in traffic jams is a waste of their time.
If we suggest that people with enough money should pay to buy some road space, that may be taken up by those working for local authorities—who will expect them to meet the charge—or for big business, who have no problem with money but only with time. Such an arrangement would penalise teachers, for example, living in one area, dropping their children off in another area, and driving to work at a school in a third area. However, perhaps that is straying off the subject of parking control.

Mr. Fearn: Am I right in thinking that, before a local authority can implement any scheme, it must make an application to the Secretary of State and receive his approval?

Mr. James Hill: I fully support the amendment to the extent that it tidies up certain points of law. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister counts it as only the first tidying up, because much remains to be done in respect of the law on wheel clamping outside the metropolitan area. A profitable business has been created by private companies clamping cars outside hospitals and in private car parks, when the motorists concerned are often unaware that they are forbidden to park there. Wheel-clamping firms impose incredible charges. The most recent example I know of involved a penalty of £45, in the city of Southampton.
I believe that the Association of Wheel Clamping is acting because of the general weakness of the law as it applies outside London. My hon. Friend the Minister would be right to argue that the law of trespass prevails, but the imposition by private companies of large fines on private motorists in not within any law that I know of outside the London area, and it is something on which my hon. Friend the Minister might usefully comment.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and to the whole House for supporting the amendments. Sometimes, it takes longer for the Government to reach the right conclusion, but I am sure that we have done so in this case. That has been possible because of co-operation between my Department and the Home Office.

Ms. Ruddock: And the Opposition.

Mr. Chope: Certainly, but the Opposition have always been of the same opinion as the Government supporters. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends also pressed me hard in Committee for the common sense behind the amendment.
Knowing as we do how stretched are police resources for allocation in London, it does not make sense to deploy them on parking offences when they could be directed at preventing crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, if local authorities or their agents enjoy sufficient income from penalties, it can be used to increase the level of enforcement. Consequently, when people drive into London, they are more likely to find a parking space, rather than be tempted to cause an obstruction.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is right to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider individual applications. The procedure is set out in detail in the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) raised the fraught question of wheel clamping on private land. Nothing in the Bill deals with that issue, and the law relating to it is subject to a certain amount of dispute. In the High Court recently, a motorist appealed against a conviction for criminal damage after he forcibly removed a wheel clamp that had been applied to a vehicle left on private land. The court found that in the particular circumstances of that case the conviction should stand because warning notices were clearly displayed on the land and that the individual who trespassed on it with his vehicle was deemed to have accepted the risk that his vehicle would be wheel clamped. However, I have no views on the definitive law. One or two other test cases are in the offing, although in one instance the defendants in a civil case withdrew. There is some difficulty in securing a definitive ruling on the civil aspect of wheel clamping because the courts can adjudicate only on cases that are brought before them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test will be aware that Southampton has one of the best-known wheel clamping firms in the country. I do not know whether anything that he said was meant as implied criticism of that firms activities. Hon. Members will welcome the code of practice or guidance produced by wheel dampers which specifies the maximum recommended fees for the removal of a clamp.
In Southampton there is much evidence that wheel clamping on housing estates has made it easier for tenants there to keep their parking spaces. Some private organisations seem to be making good use of wheel clamps. As I have said, one of the largest wheel clamping firms is based in Southampton. The legislation is a revolution in parking enforcement. It will begin in London, but bids from authorities outside London will be assessed on their merits.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 40

PARKING ATTENDANTS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 39, line 27, leave out from ("may") to end of line 30 and insert
("provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants.

(1A) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.
(1B) A parking attendant shall be—

(a) an individual employed by the authority; or
(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant.

(1C) Parking attendants in Greater London shall wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine when exercising prescribed functions, and shall not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform.")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment involves privilege. With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 76.

Mr. Chope: The amendment inserts a new clause after section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide local authorities with a clear general power to appoint parking attendants to supervise parking places. The amendment will enable parking attendants in London and elsewhere to enforce parking restrictions in special parking areas as well as the new permitted parking controls for which part II of the Bill provides.

Mr. Fearn: We welcome the amendment but query its powers, because they seem to apply only to London. However, the Minister spoke about "elsewhere", which could mean that the powers will apply outside London. I sympathise with the noble Lords who attempted to find an amendment that would introduce some guidelines on the method of payment for parking attendants. I understand that the Government disapprove of remuneration to parking attendants being based on the number of penalty charge notices issued. I agree that that would be entirely wrong.

Mr. Chope: I have nothing to add to what was said in the other place about some parking attendants being paid on the basis of the number of tickets that they issue. The Bill contains new and valuable safeguards which will enable people who feel aggrieved to go to an adjudicator. Some people feel that they are being penalised not because they overstayed the meter time but because the attendant has gambled on their not coming back to the car until the meter had ticked past the excess charge. The amendments contain the power to extend the legislation outside London, and that will be done by order when application is made. That has been considered by the Government.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 41

VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 39, line 36, leave out "In"

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16, 83 to 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 121, 131, 133 and 139.

Mr. Chope: The amendments are largely technical and are designed to improve clause 41, which provides for variable speed limits to be imposed by highway authorities in certain circumstances.

Ms. Ruddock: In connection with amendment No. 14, what other subjects, apart from the variable speed limits, might the regulations he used to deal with?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Minister says that the amendments are technical, but it is only by getting technicalities right that local highway authorities, which look after 94 to 96 per cent. of our roads, will have the opportunity to take traffic calming measures and protect the living cells, such as people on foot and on bicycles, who have as much as if not more priority than drivers.
Hon. Members will know about the number of times it has been necessary to change regulations and incorporate speed-reducing features and contributions from road traffic engineers. Such features cut speed by working sometimes on the psychology of the drivers and sometimes on the urban environment. It is important to emphasise to consumer groups, residents' groups and tenants' groups that they should campaign not for signs indicating lower speeds, but for traffic management and engineering which leads to vehicles travelling more slowly. That was one of the lessons that people learned from potholes. It has been learnt by the Danes and the Germans and, most importantly, by people in the Netherlands. Many local authorities, including some in London, have been pushing for such measures for some years.
5.45 pm
In the boroughs of Wandsworth and Bromley on two occasions the regulations did not allow the arrangements to come into force. However, traffic was moving slowly and there was no risk if the highway was changed to inhibit people travelling at speed.
I think that the amendments and the clause have all-party agreement and that they will make it possible to continue adapting what highway authorities do to keep traffic on through roads and away from routes used by people on foot. Such journeys constitute half the journeys in the country. It should be possible to require traffic going through residential or shopping areas to go much more slowly. A person in a one-and-a-half tonne steel vest should not feel that he has an automatic right to shove to one side an elderly person, a child or some other road user.
I pay tribute to the many highway engineers who work as agents for the Department as well as principals in their own right for the advances that they have made. I hope that we shall reach the stage at which Britain is the safest country in the world not just for drivers but for pedestrians, especially children. We must use the contributions of highway engineers. The erection of a sign


saying 15 mph or 20 mph is a reflection of their work rather than just an indication to motorists to drive more slowly.

Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend. About a fortnight ago, I was in Exeter visiting Devon county council, which in the past month published a book—it is more a book than a pamphlet—giving examples of traffic calming measures that have been introduced not just in Devon but in Wandsworth, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. There is no need for local authorities to keep reinventing the wheel. I commend that publication to those who are interested in traffic calming measures.
Wandsworth is not the only London authority to reduce casualties on the roads in residential areas and its success is due in no small measure to its enlightened attitude on traffic calming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, as well as putting up a sign one must introduce highway engineering measures.
In reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) I can say that the regulations will not cover other subjects. They cover speed limits and associated matters such as signing. For example, Lords amendments Nos. 83 and 94 make it clear that the Secretary of State may authorise road humps that do not conform with the regulations. The amendments go slightly wider, in that context, than pure speed. They are related to other matters that one can describe as ancillary matters.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) raised an important point. Am I right in thinking that, if a local highway department wanted to introduce road humps or any other speed-limiting feature that did not comply with the regulations, the Minister would be happy to receive an application from it and to consider whether the regulations needed to be adapted so that what made sense on the ground would also be legal?

Mr. Chope: That is very much the case, yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

After Clause 41

Lords amendment: No. 17, to insert the following new clause—Tramcars and trolley vehicles—
.—(1) After section 141 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (tramcars and trolley vehicles) there shall be inserted—

Tramcars and trolley vehicles: regulations.

141A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications—

(a) to all tramcars or to tramcars of any specified class, or
(b) to all trolley vehicles or to trolley vehicles of any specified class.

(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above are the provisions of sections 1 to 14, 18 and 81 to 89 of this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases,
(b) may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and
(c) may make such amendments to any special Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations or in consequence of the

application to any tramcars or trolley vehicles of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above.

(4) In this section—

special Act" means a local Act of Parliament passed before the commencement of this section which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles;
tramcar"includes any carriage used on any road by virtue of an order under the Light Railways Act 1896; and
trolley vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads without rails under power transmitted to it from some external source (whether or not there is in addition a source of power on board the vehicle).

(2) After section 193 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (exemptions for tramcars, trolley vehicles etc) there shall be inserted—

Tramcars and trolley vehicles.

193A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications—

(a) to all tramcars or to tramcars of any specified class, or
(b) to all trolley vehicles or to trolley vehicles of any specified class.

(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above are the provisions of—

(a) sections 12, 40A to 42, 47, 48, 66, 68 to 73, 75 to 79, 83, 87 to 109, 143 to 165, 168, 170, 171, 178, 190 and 191 of this Act, and
(b) sections 1, 2, 7, 8, 22, 25 to 29, 31, 32, 34 to 48, 96 and 97 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (provisions requiring warning of prosecution etc. and provisions connected with the licensing of drivers).

(3) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases,
(b) may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and
(c) may make such amendments to any special Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations or in consequence of the application to any tramcars or trolley vehicles of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above.

(4) In this section "special Act" means a local Act of Parliament passed before the commencement of this section which authorises or regulates the use of tramcars or trolley vehicles." "

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 101, 138, 143 and 144.

Mr. Chope: This new clause fulfils an undertaking given in Committee in another place to consider an amendment on the application of road traffic law to tramcars and trolley vehicles which received unanimous support there.

Ms. Ruddock: This is an important amendment, which we very much support. It provides, as the Minister said, for the application of the road traffic law to tramcars and trolley vehicles. It is important that the Bill should provide for this type of regulation, due to the planned opening in October of the Manchester metrolink and light rail systern that includes an element of street running, which we support. As transport policy develops and as the Government join the common-sense consensus about new modes of transport, there will be more and more


opportunities to use this measure to complement the provision of light rail systems that are used on roads, and also tramcars and trolley vehicles.
We support the amendment and are grateful to the Government for tabling it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 18, to insert the following new clause—Applications for licences to drive hackney carriages etc.—

".—(1) Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (including that Part as it applies in any area at the commencement of this section) shall have effect with the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1) of each of section 51 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) and section 59 (qualifications for drivers of hackney carriages)—

"(1A) For the purpose of satisfying themselves as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence, a council may send to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the council is situated—


(a) a copy of that person's application, and
(b) a request for the chief officer's observations; and the chief officer shall respond to the request."

(2) Where any local Act contains a provision requiring a district council to be satisfied as to the fitness of an applicant to hold a licence to drive a private hire vehicle or a hackney carriage, the council may send to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the council is situated—

(a) a copy of that person's application, and
(b) a request for the chief officer's observations;

and the chief officer shall respond to the request."

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment concerns the licensing of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers by district councils. At present under the law governing the licensing of these drivers, district councils have to satisfy themselves that an applicant for a driver's licence is a fit and proper person. The council may require the applicant to disclose any past criminal convictions, but it has no power to check that information against police records.
The effect of the amendment is that when a district council has to decide whether an applicant for a licence to drive a taxi or private hire vehicle is a fit and proper person the council may copy the application to the local chief officer of police with a request for his observations. The chief officer must respond to that request.
The origins of the amendment are to be found in early-day motion 667, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), which relates to the subject. It was signed by, I believe, 180 other Members of Parliament. Although it will not be possible to bring the new clause into force immediately, for reasons that were explained in the other place, the aim is to complete the necessary process of consultation by 1 April 1992.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister claims that one of his hon. Friends deserves credit for the amendment. However, it represents the successful conclusion of a long-running campaign by the local authority associations to enable them to obtain information from the police about whether applicants for taxi licences are fit and proper persons. The amendment is the Government's response to an amendment tabled by the Opposition in the other place.
The amendment is very much supported by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, an important organisation that has been campaigning, particularly on behalf of women but also on behalf of everyone in society, for greater personal security in the use of taxis and car hire. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he agrees with the trust that the police will require extra resources to carry out this task effectively. We very much support the amendment and are pleased that it has been tabled by the Government.

Mr. Hill: May I correct a few of the words of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock)? I am grateful for the tremendous help from the Association of District Councils. After I communicated with it, the association wrote to many local authorities. They were only too willing to make sure that Members of Parliament in their area signed my early-day motion. At the last count it had been signed by 193 Members of Parliament. An amendment was tabled that said virtually the same, except that those hon. Members who supported the amendment wanted the legislation to be in force before the summer recess. As I know how tight the schedule is, I thought that they were going a little far. In total, 220 Members of Parliament of all parties signed the early-day motion. I am grateful for their help.
The first real breakthrough came when the national association of taxi and private hire licensing and enforcement officers conducted a survey of 136 councils. When they replied, it was discovered that, in an 18-month period, 148 people who were already holding a taxi driver's licence had criminal records. That was but the tip of the iceberg.
The metropolitan area is well covered. It receives details of criminal records, but it is difficult for the chairmen of outside licensing authorities to reach the correct decision. For example, at a critical time, Southampton gave a taxi driver's licence to a person who had just been released from prison for rape. The chairman of the licensing authority, a Labour councillor, felt that it was his duty to resign. The licence was rescinded.
Such terrifying decisions, reached without knowledge of the facts, led me to believe that I should take up this important matter. The method is that every established taxi driver is sacrosanct; he will not need reassessing and it will not be necessary to go back into history. The chief constable is put under tremendous pressure. He will need not necessarily more police but more office staff to work the mainframe computers. Apart from obvious crimes, such as rape, who would want to hire a taxi driver who had been in prison several times for grievous bodily harm, child molesting, child battery or a sexual offence of any kind —even exposure to the public of his person? The chairman of the licensing authority will need a great deal of information.
I thought it unfortunate that the wording states that a request will have to be made for the chief officer's observations. It could have been beefed up a little, by making it mandatory for chief officers to obtain the names of applicants and to give the details of any criminal background to the chairman of the licensing authority without a request having to be made, but so be it. This is very good news for all of us.
I have in my hand a computer printout of the names of all hon. Members who signed the early-day motion. It makes an impressive list. Members of Parliament, of all


parties, are very concerned about this issue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that this measure will come into operation in the not-too-distant future. I hope that he is not thinking of 12 months hence.
My local newspaper, the Southern Evening Echo, went to great efforts to find out about the rapist. One cannot do without such knowledge. Local people must know what is going on, and further information about other applicants must be disclosed.
Co-operation was shown by the East Anglian Taxi Association, whose secretary, Mr. Richmond, is here, and the Southampton Taxi Association, whose representative, Mr. Lankford, did much valuable work. Local authorities brought pressure to bear on me and other hon. Members. The Government should be congratulated on this measure. There should be no harping by the Opposition. The Lords amendment will be welcomed. It is the most important amendment to the Bill.

6 pm

Mr. Fearn: The Lords amendment applies to those who grant hackney carriage licences. In time, will it be extended to minicabs?

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am delighted to take part in the debate. This issue has concerned me for 15 years since the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 came into force. In 1976, I became chairman of Reading borough council's local transport committee and was almost immediately faced with this issue. It was said to us at that time that the legislation was an attempt to tidy up even earlier legislation, the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
Almost immediately, there was a feeling that this loose end created danger for our citizens. I am delighted that borough councils such as Reading, where I served, and Thamesdown, part of whose area I represent, will feel that this loose end has finally been tidied up.
There is no doubt that women are afraid of using taxis at night because a taxi driver may have a criminal record and therefore be a potential threat. It is sad that taxi drivers with no criminal record and no possible problem in this respect are tarred with the brush of uncertainty. Women may choose not to use a taxi to get home at night because of that fear and therefore put themselves into greater danger.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond positively to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and tell us that the provision will be brought into effect as quickly as possible. There could be an incident today, tomorrow or the day after which might have been avoided if the legislation had been on the statute book a few months ago.
Let us not forget the balance of the rights of ex-offenders. Much was said in this place and in the other place about the need to protect passengers—of course that is right—but offenders have rights which must be respected.
What observations does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State expect the chief officer to provide in response to a request by a local authority? Does my hon. Friend expect the whole criminal record of an applicant to be revealed to the local authority or only the parts that may be considered germane to the application? Will the chief officer merely be asked to say, "Yes, this is a fit person," or "No, this is not a fit person"? That is not clear

from the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will make clear precisely what information chief officers should provide that will enable a local authority to decide whether someone is a "fit and proper" person to hold a taxi licence.
I warmly welcome the Lords amendment and I hope that it will soon be part of our legislation.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the Lords amendment. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Test and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that we will implement this measure as quickly as possible. I mentioned the aim of doing so by 1 April next year, and that remains the Government's objective.
Of course, a cost will be associated with this provision. Work will be done on the details, and that is why we are consulting. The measure has wide-ranging application. A large number of taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers in England and Wales operate outside London—35,000 taxi drivers and 50,000 private hire vehicle drivers.
The provision will not apply to minicab drivers in London because, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) probably knows, at present there is no licensing system for those drivers. For that reason, the Government asked the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to consider whether we should introduce a licensing system for such drivers and, if so, what form it should take. I agree with what the hon. Member for Deptford said about the fine work that that trust does.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend answer my question? Will the chief officer reveal the whole criminal record or only part of it, or will he state whether, in his judgment, an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence? It would be helpful to have an answer to that question.

Mr. Chope: Of course, that matter will be subject to discussions with the district councils, but at the moment we believe that the chief officer should disclose all convictions about which information is held nationally at the national identification bureau.

Mr. Hill: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that hon. Members do not have the right to speak again, having addressed the House once. If the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) wishes to intervene, that may be permissible.

Mr. Hill: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to intervene. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary return to his statement on the commencement date of 1 April next year? Could not several pilot schemes be started? I think particularly of Southampton in this case. By 1 April, several dozen more ex-criminals may be licensed.

Mr. Chope: I cannot go further than I have gone already. I am sure that my hon. Friend's efforts will have gained their reward, in the sense that people who have been able to tell an untruth will realise that the day of reckoning is nigh. I am sure that that will inhibit applications from those with convictions which will soon materialise. I have no doubt that taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers with criminal convictions will wish to look for another profession before this measure comes into effect.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If one person in four, or 25 per cent. of the male population, has already been convicted of an indictable offence by the age of 20, and one person in three, or 33 per cent. of the male population, has been convicted of a serious offence by the age of 30, it may be worth publicising which of those offences will disqualify an applicant and which can be admitted.
If one accepts the principles involved in the rehabilitation of offenders and wishes to make applicants more open about their convictions, people should know the ground rules. It is fine to give people a warning, but it may be useful if the Department of Transport and local authorities will consider publicising the details so that applicants can decide what information to give, knowing that they will confirm their honesty in giving their convictions and that those convictions will not necessarily disqualify them.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45

THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 41, line 22, after "Commissioners;" insert—
( ) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 20, 22 to 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 37 to 39 and 77.

Mr. Chope: The Government have a long-standing commitment to promoting the improvement of transport facilities and opportunities for people with disabilities. When the subject has been raised during the passage of the Bill, we have said that, given those commitments, the needs of people with disabilities will be dealt with in the Secretary of State's traffic management and parking guidance and will therefore be taken into account when part II of the Bill is implemented. That is now incorporated in the Bill in specific amendments which are comprehensive and consistent with other parts of the Bill.

Ms. Ruddock: For the record, we support the amendments that are being introduced at this stage. In Committee and at all stages, the Opposition have pressed for people with disabilities and for the organisations that represent them to be properly consulted. We regret that our other amendments dealing with organisations which represent persons who use any road to which the order relates—by which we meant organisations representing pedestrians, cyclists, or, indeed, the general public—did not find favour with the Government, although they were pressed in another place. The Government have chosen to single out people with disabilities, and we appreciate that positive discrimination, although other groups of road users should properly have been represented. However, we support the giving of a statutory right to disabled organisations to be consulted.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Clearly, I am pleased that the Government have accepted amendments

that allow for groups representing people with disabilities to be consulted on a mandatory basis on the introduction of red routes. However, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said. We pressed in Committee for other groups to be consulted and I should have thought that they also have an important role to play.
Thus far, the experience of the introduction of traffic management schemes through red routes in London has been an unhappy one for many people with disabilities. On the opening day of the red route through Islington, the police attempted to take away the car of a disabled person. The stopping restrictions in operation along that route mean that many people with disabilities cannot get into shops which might have specific disabled access, because the stopping places are in the wrong place. If the Department of Transport had had the foresight to consult the Islington Disablement Association and other such groups at the time of the introduction of the route, much heartache would have been saved and many problems avoided. However, the Department's approach was arrogant—it decided what it was going to do and then waited to see what the effect would be. The effect has been greater speed and a higher volume of traffic and people with disabilities are now unable to go into shops that they should be able to use. Many small shops and businesses along the route are going out of business.
People with disabilities are one group that has been affected, but the removal of the right of people with disabilities to stop along much of the red route means that they try to park in side streets. However, the heavy emphasis placed on policing the red routes has meant that traffic wardens have been taken away from policing the side routes, so specifically designated disabled persons' parking bays on side routes adjoining Upper street, Holloway road and Archway road are often now congested by the vehicles of other people who park illegally. As all the emphasis is on getting traffic along the route, the real purpose of parking restrictions and facilities that benefit people with disabilities is lost.
What form does the Minister expect the consultation to take? How will organisations in specific localities be consulted about the possible introduction of a red route or about the parking facilities in neighbouring streets? To judge from our experience, there will be a lot of trouble for people with disabilities in other parts of London as the schemes are introduced.

Mr. Chope: It was hoping for too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to be persuaded even at this stage of the success of the red route pilot scheme. I introduced new evidence which shows that as a result of the operation of the pilot scheme, there has been a significant reduction in road casualties during the two months that have so far been monitored. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. In addition, more traffic is able to use that route with greater reliability and, as a result, less traffic uses unsuitable residential roads.
In Committee, we debated at considerable length the allegations and counter-allegations about the facts relating to individual disabled people on the route. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that many amendments have


been made to the route as a result of consultation before and after the initiation of the scheme and that all road users are the beneficiaries of the red route.

Mr. Corbyn: One cannot say that all road users are the beneficiaries of that route. Only last week, I met a group of young mothers of small children who frequently have to cross that road, and they are alarmed at the speed of the traffic along it because of what I suppose can be called the effective policing which ensures a greater movement of traffic. The principle behind the opposition in the locality to the red route has been that emphasis is placed on getting more traffic more quickly through a densely built-up urban area. We believe that the Department of Transport should place the emphasis on getting more people to use buses and trains and on persuading fewer people to use cars, which congest central London, docklands or the City.
I hope that the Minister will not ignore the fact that the facilities for people with disabilities have often been impaired because of the way in which the policing is carried out. How does the Minister propose to consult local groups that represent people with disabilities before the introduction of such routes elsewhere?

Mr. Chope: In the first instance, the consultation will be with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and with any other groups which are recognised to represent the needs of disabled people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
Many people use buses and as a result of the effectiveness of the red route the time taken for bus journeys has declined, which makes the bus a more attractive option. The evidence that I have given to the House about the reduction in the number of road casualties counters the hon. Gentleman's allegation—or his implication—that pedestrians on the route are at greater risk than before.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

PROPOSED ACTION BY LONDON AUTHORITIES LIKELY TO AFFECT PRIORITY ROUTES

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 49, line 34, leave out from second "affect" to end of line 39 and insert "a priority route".

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 36, 126 and 140.

Mr. Chope: The amendments concern the quick procedures available to the London authorities under clause 54 and under paragraph 5 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985 to notify the traffic director of their proposals for minor, unforeseen road improvements on priority routes or designated roads.

Ms. Ruddock: I support the amendments. The Opposition tabled similar amendments in Committee, but they were rejected by the Government. We are especially delighted that the Government have now seen fit to accept our argument and the argument made in the other place, which is that the measures were originally too widely drawn. It is now clear that local authorities should notify

the traffic director of their plans only if those plans affect priority routes. The restriction in the power of the traffic director to intervene in borough's road plans is very much appreciated by the local authorities that would be affected by the powers of the traffic director. The authorities, especially through the Association of London Authorities, have repeatedly expressed their concern about the way in which that person will operate. I am pleased to support the amendments, which will make life easier for those who will have to try to co-operate on transport planning in the city with the newly created traffic director as a consequence of the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: I, too, welcome the small reduction in the potential powers of the traffic dictator for London. The Minister is smiling, so he must remember that those words were used often in Committee. The amendments introduce a minor change in an especially unpleasant piece of centralised government being imposed on the people of London. London lacks an elected local authority. Almost all the local authorities in the areas most affected by heavy traffic in inner London are poll tax-capped or restricted in some way. We now have a traffic director who is given enormous powers over traffic movements through those boroughs. That is fundamentally undemocratic.
Although I welcome the fact that the director's powers have been slightly curtailed in that he cannot now deal with every road that he may think fit to be affected by the introduction of a priority route scheme or a red route, we should put on record the fact that the traffic director is a wholly unwanted being. Instead, the people of London want an elected, democratic local authority which can make decisions in the interests of the people of London as a whole. They do not want a traffic dictator whose sole aim is to force yet more traffic through unwilling inner-London suburbs into an already overcrowded centre.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 59

CONTRAVENTION OF CERTAIN ORDERS RELATING TO PARKING PLACES IN LONDON NOT TO BE CRIMINAL OFFENCE

Lords amendment: No. 40 in page 53, line 9, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment corrects an error.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60

PARKING PENALTIES IN LONDON

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 54, line 3, leave out "25 per cent." and insert "the specified proportion".

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 42.

Mr. Chope: The amendment introduces some flexibility for local authorities over the amount of the discount that they can provide for prompt payment of the penalty charge.

Mr. Corbyn: I do not disagree with the amendment, but I believe that the principle is ridiculous. Local authorities should not be penalised by the director, who is not answerable to the people of London. A fundamentally undemocratic principle is being foisted on the House, yet again. Although I accept the modification of the original proposal because it is not as bad as it might have been, it does not mean that we willingly accept the principle of the right of the director to penalise local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 61

RECOVERY OF VEHICLES OR OF PROCEEDS OF DISPOSAL

Lords amendment: No. 43, in page 54, line 33, leave out from "storage" to end of line 34 and insert—
of the vehicle—

(i) as the authority may require; or
(ii) in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local authority, as may be prescribed,"

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 44 and 45.

Mr. Chope: The amendments are technical. They make it clear that when a vehicle has been removed by the police in London, the recovery charges should be those applicable in respect of the police and not the London authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 62

CHARGES FOR REMOVAL, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES

Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 55, line 16, leave out "9 or section" and insert "6, 9 or".

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Wtih this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 135.

Mr. Chope: The amendments introduce further changes to section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 so that London authorities can charge owners for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles that have contravened any order designating an on-street parking place or which are parked illegally at any local authority off-street parking place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 63

IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES IN PARKING PLACES

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 55, line 46, leave out "parking attendant" and insert
person authorised by the relevant authority to give such a direction.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 90, 91, 122, 123, 134 and 136.

Mr. Chope: The amendments fall into three main groups covering the flexibility of the London authorities and the police over authorising the release of vehicles from wheel clamps, new powers for the police to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles from suspended parking places and changes in the scope of regulations governing removal and wheel-clamping action by the police.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 66

APPOINTMENT OF PARKING ADJUDICATORS BY JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE LONDON AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 59, line 15, leave out "statutory instrument make regulations" and insert "regulations make provision".

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Mr. Chope: Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are technical. Amendment No. 69 requires the joint committee to publish a statutory annual report to the Secretary of State on the discharge by the parking adjudicators of their functions.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Before Clause 69

Lords amendment: No. 74, to insert the following new clause—Enforcement—

(".—(1) In this section

"certificated bailiff", means any person authorised to act as such under subsection (6) below; and
"a Part II debt" means any sum which is—


(a) payable under, or by virtue of, any provision of this Part of this Act; and
(b) recoverable as if it were payable under a county court order.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—

(a) for warrants of excution in respect of Part II debts, or such class or classes of Part II debts as may be specified in the order, to be executed by certificated bailiffs;
(b) as to the requirements which must be satisfied before any person takes, with a view to enforcing the payment of—

(i) a Part II debt; or
(ii) such class or classes of Part II debts as may be so specified,

any other step of a kind specified by the order.

(3) Any such order may make such incidental and supplemental provision (including modifications of any


enactment other than this Act) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of the provision made by that order under subsection (2) above.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision in connection with the certification of bailiffs under this section and the execution of warrants of execution by such bailiffs.
(5) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the security (if any) to be required from certificated bailiffs;
(b) as to the fees and expenses payable with respect to executions by certificated bailiffs; and
(c) for the suspension or cancellation of certificates issued under this section and with respect to the effect of any such suspension or cancellation.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person is a certificated bailiff if he is authorised to act as such by a certificate signed—

(a) by a judge assigned to a county court district; or
(b) in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, by a district judge.

(7) Any person who is not a certificated bailiff but who purports to levy a distress as such a bailiff, and any person authorising him to levy it, shall be deemed to have committed a trespass.")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment sets out in more detail the arrangements for the recovery of unpaid penalty charges and sums ordered to be paid by a parking adjudicator.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 2 TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988

Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 69, line 6, at end insert—
(".In the entry relating to section 143 of that Act (using vehicle while uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks) in column 4 for the words "Level 4" there shall be substituted the words "Level 5".")

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment relates to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who expressed concern about the scale of the problem of driving without insurance and asked for an increase in the penalties. The amendment is a positive response to his representations.

Mr. Roger Gale: I appreciate the action that has been taken. It will be greatly appreciated by those who have expressed concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 98, in page 75, line 3, at end insert—

".—(1) Section 41 of that Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) at the end of paragraph (e) there shall be added the words "(by means of the fixing of plates or otherwise) and the circumstances in which they are to be marked,".
(3) In subsection (2) after paragraph (j) there shall be inserted—

"(jj) speed limiters,".

(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—

"(4A) Regulations under this section with respect to speed limiters may include provision—

(a) as to the checking and sealing of speed limiters by persons authorised in accordance with the regulations and the making of charges by them,
(b) imposing or providing for the imposition of conditions to be complied with by authorised persons,
(c) as to withdrawal of authorisatiions." "

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 142.

Mr. Chope: In the interests of road safety and fuel efficiency, we already require coaches to be fitted with speed limiters, and we have recently proposed that new heavy goods vehicles over 7·5 tonnes gross weight should be fitted with limiters.
The reason for introducing this amendment is to enable us to exercise control over the way speed limiters are calibrated. If they are to fulfil their function of restricting the speed of vehicles to the motorway speed limits, or to any lower speed selected by the vehicle operators, they must be properly installed and calibrated to the characteristics of the particular vehicle. That is best achieved in a workshop specially equipped for the purpose.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to require the checking and sealing of speed limiters only by persons authorised by him. That means that only an authorised person would be able to seal the system against tampering, but before doing that he would have to ensure that the speed limiter was properly connected and also that it had been calibrated at or below the speed limit. It would enable the Secretary of State to impose conditions to be complied with by the people authorised to check speed limiters; to set charges; and to withdraw authorisations —for example, if they failed to meet the necessary standards.
In addition, the amendment would make it an offence to forge a speed limiter seal or any plate containing particulars required to be marked by the construction and use regulations. It would also make it an offence to impersonate a person authorised to check and seal speed limiters.
I commend the amendments to the House as a necessary means of ensuring that speed limiters function correctly in practice and that there are reasonable safeguards against tampering or other interference.

Ms. Ruddock: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate the consensus that has been arrived at during the passage of the Bill and the way in which the Opposition have been able to support and commend the amendments from the other place. This may be my last opportunity to express an opinion on the measures remaining in the Bill. I therefore wish to record the Opposition's support for Lords amendment No. 98.
We have no doubt that the limiting of the speed of heavy goods vehicles and coaches has been an important step in terms of road safety. All of us who use our roads are constantly concerned about the way in which speed limits are breached. Such breaches are more serious where large numbers of people are being carried, as on coaches, or where the weight of vehicles is important, as with heavy goods vehicles. Any measures to ensure that proposals to limit speed work effectively are welcome. The Opposition very much welcome the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). There have been significant improvments to the Bill and amendment No. 98 about speed limiting is important, but its importance must be kept in perspective.
The number of people who have been killed and seriously injured has fallen dramatically over the decades —there has been a 25 per cent. drop in the number of serious injuries in relation to the distance travelled over the past three or four years—and that is a tribute to using measures that work. One of the things which distinguish this country from other European countries is that we tend not to have a blind political response to every tragedy that is drawn to our attention.
There are times when, sadly, people are killed, but in circumstances that are unlikely to recur and in circumstances where legislating against behaviour would not make much difference. It is also important to realise that, when the Transport and Road Research Laboratory or other bodies carry out pilot schemes or collect data for analysis—it is analysis rather than proscription that is important—it is possible to introduce measures which are likely to receive more public understanding and more likely to have an effect because they will work.
Limiting the speed of heavy vehicles is unlikely to reduce the number of crashes, but it is likely to reduce the consequences of those crashes. As we discussed earlier, some measures will reduce the number of crashes. Mixing together the virtue of reducing the causes and consequences of crashes is part of the job of people working in the area of road casualty reduction.
It is important to continue to exert as much effort as possible and to devote as many resources as possible to identifying the changing and continuing patterns of crashes and of people's behaviour leading to 5,000 to 5,500 deaths and 270,000 to 300,000 injuries every year.
About five or six years ago the Government set a target of cutting the number of injuries and fatalities by one third by the year 2000. I now believe that that target was mistaken. It should have been a reduction of one third in relation to distance travelled and a reduction of one third, if possible, in absolute numbers of deaths and serious injuries.
The number of slight injuries will be determined by the number of vehicles on the road, which may cause the numbers to increase, but we can continue to have a great deal of success in dealing with the number of deaths and serious injuries. I do not wish to stray beyond the bounds of amendment No. 98 by saying more than a word about the dramatic decrease in the incidence of drink-driving since 1967, when Barbara Castle first began to take the issue seriously. It took the public some years to catch up with the legislation.
It became law for adults to wear seat belts in the fear of vehicles a week ago. That will not just save 100 lives; it will save half the lives that would otherwise be lost if people sitting in the rear of cars—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line. I do not see it anywhere in the amendments.

Mr. Bottomley: The second part of that sentence—to take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to continue what I hope to say—applies equally well to cutting the effective speeds of heavy goods vehicles, which is the point of the amendment. When the United States lifted its federal ban on legal speeds of more than 55 mph, in some states in the first six months the number of deaths on the equivalent of our motorways rose by more than 40 per cent.
We have a high disregard for speed limits in this country. In general, people will not pay attention to them unless there is a semi-automatic enforcement, such as speed limiters or cameras on motorway bridges so that someone who drives at excessive speed from, say, Bristol to Birmingham will receive a ticket or account stating, "You have persistently exceeded the speed limit—please pay £100 for the journey." That is the kind of excess speed road pricing which might work.
It is unacceptable for 12 to 14 people to die on our roads each day. It is very boring to say common-sense things, whether or not they apply to the families who tragically died in a crash in Scotland at the weekend, but we must continue to make the point that those 12 to 14 deaths per day, most of which never even make the newspapers, matter just as much as deaths on the railways or in air crashes.
I do not want to say that the Government could do a great deal more—the Government and local authorities are doing an immense amount—but, within the bounds of order, I wish to make it plain that heavy goods vehicles which do not exceed the speed limit will make as much difference as persuading all cyclists that it is not just good style but common sense to wear helmets, because whoever caused the crashes, 80 per cent. of dead cyclists died only because of head injuries, and 80 per cent. of those head injuries could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Motorcyclists, especially those under 21, could find themselves as safe as drivers of heavy goods vehicles with speed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the Lords amendment, please.

Mr. Bottomley: On the speed limit, inexperienced drivers seldom drive heavy goods vehicles at or above the speed limit. What they tend to learn through experience could be shared by others. If we could find ways not just of lecturing pedestrians who are involved in crashes, not necessarily with heavy goods vehicles travelling at more than their legal speed limit, we shall find that this is the safest country in the world, leaving aside those in which people do not drink and do not have motor vehicles. We could continue to cut the casualty rate by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. year after year. In a relatively civilised country, we should be able to get road deaths down to below 4,000 a year by the year 2000. We shall not know which families will have been saved tears, but we shall be able to say that our statistics prove that we have been effective.

Mr. Fearn: This is an excellent Bill. We did an awful lot in Committee. The Minister will recollect that I referred to speed limiters and their manufacturers. I asked whether speed limiter inspections are to be made in factories or whether they will be left to inspectors from the Department of Transport, who will wait until speed limiters are fitted to vehicles before determining that a speed limiter is accurate and working.

Mr. Gale: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the amendments that he has been able to accept and for his undertakings in Committee and in the House, which have been honoured in another place. There is no doubt that they have made a considerable improvement to the Bill.
As a Kent Member, I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about the speed at which heavy goods vehicles travel on our roads between the channel ports and London. The matter seriously affects our constituents. For that reason, I certainly welcome the steps that were taken in another place to tighten controls on heavy goods vehicles and to introduce the limiters that we believe will assist in the control of lorries within the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Minister has taken this point on board and I hope that he will pursue it in future, but it will not be enough simply to control the speeds of United Kingdom lorries—we must make sure that the speeds of heavy continental lorries, in particular, are also controlled if our roads are to be genuinely and fully safe, as we would all wish them to be.

Mr. Corbyn: Like others, I welcome any improvement in road safety and anything that can be done to reduce the speed of heavy goods vehicles and coaches in particular. I cannot be the only person who, when travelling along a motorway, has been truly frightened by the size and speed of very large double-decker buses swaying in the wind in the third lane and travelling at obviously excessive speeds. Bearing in mind the timetables of some coaches, they have to break the speed limit to adhere to them. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind and consider the commercial pressures on some coach operators.
Additionally, there is a large number of heavy freight vehicles, not just on motorways but on dual carriageways and urban roads. Those vehicles are powerful—they have to be—and they are fast. They often travel at way over the speed limit, which is incredibly dangerous. The speeds at which they travel and their distance from each other are extremely dangerous. Also, cars or lorries overtaking on the inside are dangerous.
6.45 pm
I hope that, in accepting the amendments, which will obviously improve matters relating to speed, the Minister will give us some hope that there will be vigorous prosecution of offences and investigation of background causes, which are often pressure on lorry drivers to maintain unrealistic timetables and the unrealistic expectations that are imposed upon them. Exactly the same often applies to coaches operating to timetables.
Although the amendment does not refer to speed limiters on cars, there is something slightly odd in that we not only advertise but encourage the advertisement of cars and other road vehicles which are capable of travelling at more than twice the speed limit on major roads. Something must be done about that. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, when speed restrictions on

motorways in the United States were lifted, the casualty rate went up. That was inevitable. Those who talk about raising speed limits on British motorways should consider the statistics in the United States. It is a crazy notion. We should not allow the number of deaths on our roads to continue.
It has been pointed out that little publicity is given to road deaths. That is an important point. If there is a train crash and 20 people are killed, quite rightly there is outrage. Quite rightly, there is deep concern about the safety of the railway system and the competence of the operators, inquiries are mounted, and so on. That is absolutely right, but the same attitude is not taken to road deaths. If there is a major crash involving a coach carrying a large number of civilian casualties, there is some publicity for it, but the average death on the road might just get a footnote in a local paper—it is not regarded as a serious matter. I hope that we can encourage the media to be much more vigorous in reporting the number of deaths which occur on our roads as there is carnage on a massive scale.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman helpfully mentioned the media. Does he agree that it might be sensible to have a closer association between the cause and the consequence? Does he agree that it would be very sensible for such issues to be a matter of public knowledge? If there is a crash, fatal or otherwise, and if there is evidence of a vehicle, especially a heavy goods vehicle, in line with the amendment, travelling above the legal speed limit, should not that information be made publicly available as soon as it is known to the police or the authorities, rather than being kept back to produce as a surprise at a coroner's inquest or a court case?
By extension, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would also be sensible for the fact that a driver had been drinking to be put on the public record within hours or days of the crash rather than waiting until everyone has forgotten and the crash has moved from the front page to page 5 of the local paper?

Mr. Corbyn: That is a good point. I can think of horrific accidents which, it has later transpired, have been caused by drunken driving. That fact has not appeared until a long time later, when the issue has passed from the public mind. One must be cautious that the papers do not prejudge whatever prosecution may take place against a driver, but it is reasonable to publicise the fact that a charge of speeding or drunken driving has been laid.
The media should think much more carefully about this issue. As I have said, there is rightly great concern about rail and other transport crashes, but little concern about the deaths on our roads or about road safety. Perhaps the Minister will consider publishing the statistics in a different form, and detailing the causes behind road accidents. If his Department used a different form of publicity, people might be more aware of the problem. It is only when one meets a family who have been bereaved by a road crash, whatever the cause, that one begins to realise the real horror of the situation.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate for their support for these road safety provisions. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for their support throughout


the passage of this important Bill. I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for both her kind comments and her co-operation—

Mr. Corbyn: What about me?

Mr. Chope: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
It is not every day that the House can consider 144 amendments in such a relatively short time.
I should now like to thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for his considerable contributions to our debate. We have not agreed on everything, but his contributions have always been succinct and to the point. I am grateful to him for that. Nor shall I forget the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who has been in his place throughout our debate today and was a persistent and regular attender in Committee. Nobody could ask for more.
I hope that the House will accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: Is there any possibility of the Minister's Department changing the form of its presentation of road accident statistics so that there can be greater public understanding of the danger and loss of life resulting from road accidents?

Mr. Chope: We are always prepared to look at new ways of presenting statistics. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham is joining the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in holding a celebration at the Royal Automobile Club either next week or the week after specifically to draw attention to the enormous progress that has been made in the past three or four years in reducing the terrible toll on our roads. Neither my hon. Friend nor anybody else is complacent about the situation. If we can further draw the attention of the public to the need to adopt road safety measures, that is all the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5

PARKING PENALTIES

Lords amendment: No. 104, in page 89, line 3, leave out from "serve" to end of line 4 and insert "a notice ('a notice to owner') on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 105 to 120.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my hon. Friend advise the House whether the amendment was one of the recommendations of the North committee and, whether or not it was, will he take this opportunity to place on the record what was said earlier in the Bill's passage—that many of those who gave advice to the Government should be pleased with the progress that has been made because their detailed work has been the foundation of much of part I? That fact should be recorded as we approach the end of our deliberations on the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

HUMAN FARTILISATION AND EMBRYLOGY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Special Exemptions) Regulation 1991, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved,—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Computer Services for Members

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Dr. John Cunningham: Many of those interested in the provision of computer services to hon. Members will probably have groaned inwardly and silently when the Leader of the House stated that the House would debate the fourth report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1989–90 tonight, on the grounds that it would come on at a late hour. Clearly, the Leader of the House knew something that we did not.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for finding the time to debate the report, because I know that many Select Committee and other reports vie for time for debate on the Floor of the House, and not all are successful. Therefore, speaking as the Chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate this evening.
I know that we are debating this matter on a motion for the Adjournment, but I hope that we shall hear from the Leader of the House that, as long as there is general approval for the unanimous recommendations of the report, the right hon. Gentleman will move to expedite its recommendations and to put into motion the work that can be started immediately to improve services for hon. Members.
Almost exactly six years ago—in July 1985—the House debated an earlier report from the Services Committee on the same subject, also on the motion for the Adjournment. Sadly, no action was taken on the recommendations in that report, but I hope that we shall have more success following our deliberations this evening. Six years on, we are debating a much more modest set of proposals about the use of computers by hon. Members.
The report originated with the Computer Sub-Committee, the Chairmanship of which I inherited from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Sub-Committee is concerned with the provision of computer services for Members and Officers. It meets only rarely, but nevertheless it has done important work on behalf of the House. It is worth noting that the budget for expenditure on computers for staff in the House totals £3·2 million for the current financial year, but that there is no budget for the provision of computers from central funds for Members. That is an eloquent comment. We are obviously willing to invest significant sums for services for Officers, but nothing like the same approach has been taken yet on behalf of Members.
I have described the report as "modest"—and it is certainly much more modest than I would have liked. I make extensive use of computers in my own offices, here and elsewhere. I know that some people manage without them, but I find it hard to understand how. As Chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, I was persuaded to seek a unanimous report—to go for a consensus report—and to achieve the support of hon. Members of all parties; that is what I did, and we are now considering the report.
The appearance of the motion on the Order Paper a full year after the report was approved—I suppose that by parliamentary standards that counts as expedition—encourages me to think that, on the one hand, I am fortunate, but that, on the other hand, the other Select

Committee proposed by the Leader of the House—a Committee on procedures in the House—cannot come a moment too soon.
The report builds on the work of the Computer Sub-Committee during the 1983 Parliament. That Sub-Committee was ably and enthusiastically chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (:Mr. McWilliam), and its report, "Information Technology: Members' Requirements", was agreed in December 1984 and debated in July 1985. The report drew on the results of a detailed study by The Economist intelligence unit on Members' information technology needs.
The 1984 report proposed the phased introduction of a local cable network based on broad-band cabling throughout the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings, with a view to giving all Members, their staff and the Departments of the House access to centrally generated information services such as POLIS and a wide range of commercial services and databases.
During the debate on the report, suggestions were made that the Sub-Committee had not consulted widely enough among Members at large. Other criticisms, too, were made, including some rather cranky views, such as that Members did not really need computer systems or word processing, and that those who did were a tiny minority. It would be nice to think that those ideas had bitten the dust, not least because, for our most recent study, we again examined Members' circumstances so as fully to inform the work of the Sub-Committee before producing our report.
For example, we conducted another survey along almost identical lines to the earlier survey. The results are summarised in paragraphs 14 to 16 of our report, and are set out in more detail in page 13, at the back of the volume. They show what can be described only as a staggering increase in the use of computers by Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Simon Coombs: As the hon. Gentleman said, the report is already a year old. Does he have any more recent information on that trend?

Dr. Cunningham: I have only anecdotal evidence, but it all suggests increasing use of computer systems of various kinds by Members and their staff. It is impossible to keep updating the information in reports in the hope that one day they might be debated on the Floor of the House. I take the intention of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) to be supportive, in that he agrees that those important developments continue to gather momentum.
Of the 355 Members who returned the questionnaire, 293 were already using computerised equipment of some kind and a further 21 were planning to do so. Even if no account is taken of the non-respondents, more than a year ago 48 per cent. of all Members and a clear majority of Back Benchers had entered the world of the late 20th century and introduced some kind of information technology appliance into their offices. In other words, the use of computers and word processors had increased threefold in the five years between the earlier report and the report now before the House.
The basic point is clear. When the Sub-Committee discusses Members' information technology needs, we are not hypothesising about something that will happen in the future: we are talking about what has already happened and is a continuing trend. A majority of Members now, use


computer systems, as, of course, do all modern businesses, educational establishments and people in industry, commerce and administration throughout Whitehall. The House is engaged in a catching-up exercise on behalf of Members, in the interests not only of more efficient offices here—and, one hopes, more effective scrutiny of Ministers from time to time—but of providing a more efficient service on behalf of our constituents.
Computers and word processors are now almost a routine part of office life in Westminster, and I hope that we shall agree tonight that we need to take certain steps—I emphasise that they are modest steps—to regularise the situation. The House has a responsibility to decide how best those formidable services can be provided for Members, and what we can do collectively to help colleagues to take full advantage of what computer systems have to offer.
We accept that the priority is the need to provide proper offices for Members. Like many other Members in the Chamber today, I have been in the House a long time, yet we still have not achieved the modest goal of providing an office for each Member. I accept that as an objective of the House administration, but we should also accept the need to provide proper computer and information technology systems for all Members.
I acknowledge the debt that we owe the Leader of the House and his immediate predecessor for adopting a new and more energetic approach to improving the workings of the House in all its aspects. However, in this case, the most remarkable aspect of the growth in the use of computers by Members is that it has happened entirely as a result of individual decisions. Members have acted on their own behalf, not because of any collective decision or provision at Westminster.
Of course, the piecemeal approach has had a price in terms of public expenditure. First, there is no guarantee that the equipment bought through the office costs allowance is the best available, the most suitable in the circumstances, or the best value for money. Secondly, piecemeal individual purchases of computers, word processors and fax machines guarantees that, in terms of public expenditure, the worst bargain is probably struck.
As paragraph 31 of the report explains:
no other large scale user of computers (whether in industry or in government) would countenance off-the-shelf purchase at standard retail prices when contemplating the acquisition of many hundreds of machines.
Yet that is how equipment is provided here. People make individual decisions and go out and acquire what they think is the best buy off the shelf. If bulk purchasing were available, the cost to the public purse would be significantly reduced, without necessarily eliminating choice for Members. The same considerations apply to the maintenance of equipment.
Page 34 of the report describes the Computer Officer of the House as suggesting that savings of at least 30 per cent. could be made by central purchasing of computers. He cites a saving of almost 70 per cent. in maintenance costs if there were some collective provision.
Thirdly, Members buy expensive equipment, yet often use it only in routine and basic ways, such as for word processing, keeping personal records and filing, whereas

they could use the same equipment to tap into the vast amount of information available on public and commercial databases.
That happens because we have failed collectively to provide an efficient system whereby all our machines could talk to each other and use the computerised information systems available in the House, in Government and in the outside world. So there is huge under-utilisation of even the resources that we have.
The Sub-Committee's report makes a number of proposals to address the inadequacies of the present system. As I said, they are extremely modest proposals. My personal preference would be for the House to accept full responsibility for the provision of computers and associated equipment for all Members' offices and to establish a comprehensive network to support the machines. However, I have been persuaded that, for the time being, we should not seek such an all-embracing and comprehensive approach—hence the line taken in the report.
Our first proposals are designed to ensure that there is proper provision in the Palace and outbuildings for the transmission of computer data between Members' offices, and between Members' offices and the wide range of data services now available. We therefore propose, at paragraph 44, that discussions should be held between the Parliamentary Works Office, the Computer Officer—to whom I pay tribute for his excellent work in servicing the Committee and in providing advice and information to the House more widely—the Communications Manager, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and appropriate commercial contractors, to identify the type and capacity of cable required to meet the long-term needs of the House for the transmission of both data and television signals.
A consultants' study of the recabling of the House and surrounding buildings for staff services and the annunciator service has already been commissioned. That is an important and useful development, but it is also important to recognise that we shall need to recable the House for the annunciator and Library services and for other services. It would be nonsense and short-sighted not to take into account, before that decision is made, the needs of hon. Members for information technology services. We would expect the consultations to lead to an early decision to introduce a new broad-band cable throughout the Palace and the outbuildings which would meet the needs of the House for the foreseeable future.
There are additional reasons for introducing such a cable, not directly connected with computers. The Services Committee has recently been under great pressure from hon. Members who understandably want access to terrestrial, satellite and cable television in their offices. Some hon. Members already have access to some of those services in existing buildings, but the majority have not. Moreover, from October, those hon. Members who are lucky enough to have palaces in phase 1 of the new building—[HON. MEMBERS: "Palaces?"] I meant "offices"; it was a slip of the tongue. It may be a palace, but it is no prize.
Such hon. Members will already have annunciator screens doubling as conventional television sets that can carry all terrestrial television services and one or two satellite services. In the rest of the buildings, the annunciator system is now antique and is extremely expensive to operate and maintain, especially given that


every single replacement has to be tailormade because the existing annunciator screens can no longer be bought off the shelf.
A new cable throughout the buildings would therefore serve three separate and important functions: to link Members' computers into what could develop into a computer network; to provide all Members' offices with access to commercial television services; and to provide the framework for the replacement of the annunciator system.
The Committee's second main proposal, at paragraph 57 of the report, is for the establishment of a working party to draw up specifications for the interfaces required between Members' work stations and the cable system, and to draw up a list of approved types of computers, word processors and other standard office equipment. Among others, the working party would include representatives of the Library, whose POLIS system is the most obvious readily available database to which hon. Members may wish to have access. The vast majority of hon. Members who replied to the questionnaire last year wanted access to the POLLS service.
Such provision may in itself cut public expenditure by reducing the cost of Members' gaining access to the information that they require. For example, many questions may not need to be tabled, and the necessity for reports to be commissioned on behalf of Members' may be eliminated. That means that there is a potential benefit in cost terms, too.
A list of approved equipment would be the first tentative move towards the standardisation of equipment in Members' offices and, as the report says at paragraph 60,
would be an interim stage towards the likely ultimate objective of transferring responsibility for the purchase of Members' basic equipment from the individual Member to a central fund".
At that interim stage, we could begin to see the advantage of central purchasing and maintenance under an arrangement which allowed Members to buy equipment through a central agency, preferably the Computer Officer, and to buy into standard maintenance and training contracts, thus saving considerable sums.
The report goes on to say that the House may well wish in future to take the "final step" towards the central ownership and maintenance of computerised office equipment, but that is not recommended now; nor is it an inevitable consequence of what the Committee proposes.
I remind the House, however, that such a move would not exactly be revolutionary. It is the common practice in many Commonwealth and European Parliaments, and as long ago as 1987, the Top Salaries Review Body expressed the view
that there would be considerable advantages in the central provision of equipment by the House, especially in terms of standardisation and bulk buying".
For the time being, we do not propose that the House should go down that road, and we respect the right of those hon. Members who wish to continue to bang out their constituency mail on ancient manual typewriters or to have the right not to be connected into any on-line information system. The fact that the equipment is there in Members' offices and ready to tap into does not mean that Members are obliged to use it.
However, an agreement that only certain types of equipment may be purchased through the office costs allowance would be a small step in the right direction, because it would mean that we could move towards

compatible systems throughout the House. It would also probably not be that painful for individual Members. Our survey last year suggested that the overwhelming majority—93 per cent.—of computer equipment was already IBM PC-compatible, so a good deal of basic standardisation is already taking place through hon. Members' own decisions.
The House will be wondering what all this will cost. When I took over the chairmanship of the Computer Sub-Committee, I was warned that cost would be the big stumbling block in the way of anything that we thought of proposing. Since then, the Parliamentary Works Office has done some basic sums for us in March this year, it concluded that about £1·5 million would provide us with a new cable, completely new annunciators capable of carrying television pictures, and facilities for connecting all equipment to the cable. Given that the annunciator system is now life-expired and will have to be replaced, by the Government's own admission, in the next few years, the total sum about which we are talking is relatively tiny.
Let me put the sum of £1·5 million into a wider context. The Members' pay and allowances vote for 1991–92 is £57·5 million. The vote for the House of Commons administration is £44·25 million and the parliamentary works vote is £29·36 million. Set beside those sums, £1.5 million to purchase the kind of cabling that we suggest—some of which will be necessary in any event—is a modest sum, and no one could describe it as an outrageous drain on public expenditure.
In return for that sum, the House would acquire the basic framework into which we could build a computer and communications network to suit the changing demands of Members during the next few decades. It seems to me a small price to pay, and the taxpayer would be getting better value for his money than under the present arrangements for such expenditure. Of course, the ultimate objective—which may not gain favour with every hon. Member—is more effective scrutiny by Members of what happens here, and more effective representation of our constituents.

Mr. David Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that spending that amount of money would undoubtedly bring significant savings? For example, telephone bills would be much smaller because people would use far fewer outside lines to get back into what they could access internally.

Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to agree with that point, although it is difficult to quantify the gains at this stage. When I was elected 21 years ago, Members did not even have their own telephones. There may even have been a time when Members provided their own telephones. I do not know whether that is the case. Perhaps I should ask the Library to check. It seems preposterous now to propose that a telephone cabling system should not be provided for our use and the use of our staff. I am sure that, in a few years, when people look back, they will see that we took an inordinately long time to modernise the way in which we provide information to Members and researchers.
I believe that the Leader of the House will want to respond positively to the report, as he has responded positively to other suggestions for improvements and progress in the way in which the House manages its affairs. I certainly hope that he will respond positively. The most positive step that he could take would be to make it clear


that, following this debate, he will initiate the necessary action with the House of Commons Commission and other committees to make progress on implementing the recommendations.
The report concludes in paragraph 68:
The House cannot continue to adopt a wholly amateur approach to the use of new technologies which are already the standard tools of work in industry, business, education and government services of all kinds throughout the developed world".
Members' actions show that we believe that there is a need to move forward and become more professional in our approach. All that is needed is the collective will on the part of the Government and the House of Commons Commission to allow that more professional approach to be adopted.
We do not expect Members to rig up their own telephone lines, as I said a few moments ago. We should no longer expect them to rig up their own computer systems. From time to time—indeed, more regularly than ever as the general election approaches—I talk to business men and women who look forward to a change of Government. While they do not all necessarily support my view, they have one view in common when they come to the House. They never cease to be amazed at the quaintness and faded gentility of the place and the appalling lack of services and facilities in the offices in which we work to represent them, their employees and our constituents. In the main, they go away thinking that Parliament is always at the forefront of demands that other organisations, establishments and groups reform themselves. In this respect, as in some others, they think that it is about time that we reformed ourselves for a change.

Mr. David Wilshire: Until he made his last few comments, I had been about to say that I entirely agreed with everything that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. Clearly, I must dissociate myself from the only mistake in his whole speech. He will not win the next election. However, I am sure that he will take everything else in the spirit that I intend. I support everything that he said about the matter that we are debating.
When I first entered the House in 1987, I was luckier than many of my colleagues, in that I had used a word processor before. Apart from that, I was computer-illiterate. I suppose that there are those who would say that I am illiterate, but for the purposes of this debate let us settle for computer-illiterate.
As all my colleagues will know, when I first arrived I was provided with a desk, a telephone, two filing cabinets and a not ungenerous office allowance. But otherwise, I was utterly and completely on my own. Four years later, I have two Amstrad minicomputers, a word processing package, a database and a modem link to the Parliamentary On-Line Information System. I hasten to add that I am one of just 49 Members who have taken advantage of the opportunity to be linked up directly to POLIS. To this day, I am slightly amazed that all that technology works. Whether it works well is a different matter, but I am constantly amazed that it works.
It is clear to me that my computer equipment enables me to do things that I could not possibly do otherwise.
However, I am conscious that I am not getting the best even from my fairly small basic personal computer. There are still things that I do not understand about my word processing package. Many a time when I am using it, someone comes along and says, "Why are you doing that? All that you need to do is the other." I am still learning, four years on.
I know now that, when I set up on my own small database which I had bought off the shelf, I did not do it properly. Some 10,000 records later it is rather difficult to alter. But perhaps someone knows different and can tell me how to alter it—one of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I have yet to get to grips with POLIS.
To obtain all that equipment set me—or the taxpayer—back £5,000. I have not the faintest idea whether it was good value for money. I have no means and no knowledge to test that. Such a tangle does the mother of Parliaments no credit whatever. When other people can put men on the moon, many an office in the House still has steam-driven typewriters, as the hon. Gentleman said. It really is not good enough.
Therefore, I welcome the debate and I support the proposals in the report. However, I am appalled that nothing seemed to be done after the debate in 1985. I hope that this time we shall not have a rerun of what happened then. In supporting the report, I wish to explain three matters as they seem to me. I shall state, first, why I believe that we need to change; secondly, what seems sensible for us to do; and, thirdly, how we should make those changes.
The reasons why we need to make the changes have been well set out in the report and by the hon. Gentleman. If we follow his Committee's recommendations we shall end up as better legislators and better representatives of our constituents, irrespective of our party. We and other people will be able to judge whether the money we spend gives us value for money.
How would we become better legislators? First, we would be better informed. It is amazing that events can take place in the world outside and we do not know about them. My leg is always pulled when I complain that I do not have access to television. People say that all that I want to do is stay up late at night and watch what I read about in the newspapers. But I can work here all day and not know the first thing about some major news item, because I am confined to the Chamber or my office. I do not regularly have access to the world outside. If we were better informed, we should be better legislators.
Secondly, it would be easier for all of us to do research. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be fewer demands on House of Commons staff. I am convinced that that is right. I am very conscious of how often I ask other people to do something which I know could be done more simply if only I had the means to do so. There would be enormous savings. We would also be encouraged to do more research. Sometimes I am reluctant to use the time of a member of the Library staff to research a matter which I consider interesting but relatively trivial compared with the demands of others. We would be able to do more and better research if we could do it ourselves.
One advantage about which the Government—whatever party is in power; this is not a party political point—may not be so keen is that we would be better legislators because the system would bring us closer to the Government and the Departments. It would make us much more able to ask questions, exchange information and go back and ask again. We would no longer have to


exchange interminable letters and wait a long time for the replies. We would be better legislators if we were closer to the Government.
Why would we be better representatives? I am sure that, given a system that we all understood and could plug into, we would give our constituents a quicker and fuller response to their inquiries. We would be in a much better position to seek help from them if we could communicate with people. We would find it much easier to communicate with our constituents. How often are we criticised for being remote and out of touch? It would be easier for constituents to communicate with us.
I know of 10-year-old constituents who are capable of faxing information who are amazed when I look blank and say that such things do not happen here. We have all known occasions when people want to fax important information to us and we have scratched our heads and replied that we are not sure how that could be done. If we had a cabling system, as proposed by the hon. Member for Copeland, we should be better able to communicate with our constituents and they with us.
Value for money is important. If the proposed system was installed, we could make better use of our time. At the moment, there is a quaint tradition of pieces of paper rushing around the Palace after us. I pay great tribute to those who try to find us in appalling circumstances, but it does us no credit that we communicate with each other in this place by means of little bits of paper. Sometimes they do not catch up with us for several days.
The new system would also make better use of the time of our staff. How many of us have had to dispatch someone from Abbey gardens, to Dean's yard, Norman Shaw North or to the Palace? If one totted up the amount of time spent obtaining information it would be clear that obtaining it via the cable system suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland would represent a sensible saving of taxpayers' money.
I am equally convinced that we would use our allowances in a different way if the new facilities were introduced. Bulk purchasing would save money, as would the standardisation of equipment. I am also sure that there would be less wastage. I do not know whether some of the things that I did were a waste of money, but I am sure that others have done what they thought to be right only to discover, through no fault of their own, that their system is not compatible with others. They may discuss the matter with colleagues and discover that, had they done so earlier, they would have done things differently.
We may argue about whether we can quantify the cost of telephone calls—the hon. Member for Copeland is right that we may be unable to do so—but I am certain that the proposed new system would result in getting more from the same amount of expenditure. I am sure that that would happen even if we did not reduce the individual allowance to pay for the central funding of the system. I believe that, under the new system, we would get more from the current level of expenditure and that is just as important as a value-for-money exercise, as is one to discover ways in which to spend less.
What should we do? Certainly we should do more than we did in 1985. However, we should do nothing until we have wired up the system. No matter how hard an individual may beaver away, we cannot do anything until we are linked with the central system. The wiring up of the system must be top of the list.
Standardised, specially designed equipment is just as important as the ability to bulk purchase. The word processing packages, mail boxes, message systems and diary systems should be specially designed for us and centrally available. We must also have a comprehensive database system. POLIS is all right up to a point, but it simply tells us where to look in Hansard for what we want—it does not tell us what is in Hansard. A comprehensive database system would go way beyond POLIS, useful though that is.
We should ensure that all the facilities can be accessed from each of our constituencies—that important point was not stressed in the report. Increasingly, individual Members are taking the view, often rightly, that a better service to constituents can be given if staff are based in the constituency rather than here. Whatever we set up in the Palace, it must be readily accessed from our constituencies.
We must ensure that help is provided for all hon. Members. When I came to the House, I considered myself lucky, as I knew a little about word processing. We must establish a proper system to help hon. Members make better use of the equipment available. They should understand what they might need in the future. The starting point for that system must be an invitation for bids for its design and development. Despite what the report says, I do not want another in-house Committee to be established which will run for years. It is no good lion. Members scratching their heads about what will happen next. We should go to the experts straight away. They should design and develop what we need for the future.
We should set up a central purchasing system as quickly as possible because, even if we do not follow some of the other proposals, that would be a sensible step ahead. We must establish urgently advisory as well as training services for hon. Members and their staff—it is probably more important to train our staff to use the equipment. That training and advice must be basic as well as advanced and readily accessible to all.
I have explained why I believe that we should support the report and why the Government should take firm action. I believe that that action will make us better legislators and better representatives. It would also help us to achieve better value for money. It only remains for me to comment on when we should act—in a word, now. If we leave it just for a moment, it will be too late. The longer we wait, the greater the waste. The longer we wait, the longer constituents will go on receiving less than the ideal service that they have every right to expect. The longer we wait, the longer we will miss an important opportunity to enable us to ensure that our legislation is of the highest quality. We pass up such an opportunity at our peril.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: My speech will echo largely what has already been said. The work that has been done by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his Sub-Committee is to be warmly welcomed. It is not typical of him to have such radical notions about making fast progress—that is in no sense a criticism—but I wish that he had used his considerable energy and resourcefulness to push the conclusions of the report further. However, he has explained his reasons, and I accept them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that we are not talking about a minor, technical


matter. We must decide whether such new services would make us better legislators and more readily acessible to the outside world. I have been a Member of the House for two Parliaments—other hon. Members have been here much longer—and even in that time I have noticed a dramatic increase in the volume of paper that is pushed across our desks. It is difficult to be sure that one has dealt conscientiously with all that paper unless one has the best and most modern information technology systems available.
I do not believe that it is particularly difficult to work out what we need. The work of the Committee has been signal in that regard, as it has identified that we need a broad-band cable network throughout the precincts of the Palace and outstations such as Norman Shaw North.
The hon. Member for Copeland was right to say that some of the work could be done in parallel with other projects—for example, the replacement of the annunciator system. I hope that the Government will be able to take decisions quickly enough to achieve the cost benefits that would accrue from cabling the network and replacing the annunciator system quickly. Presumably that means that that would be done within months rather than years.
We have already had a delay of six years since the last report, which is a great shame. I do not know who is to blame for that, and I know that processes in this place work exceedingly slow, but we shall stand condemned of unconscionable delay if we do not seize the moment to make the progress that the Committee indentified as possible.
The Committee report makes a telling point when it alludes to what is being done in sister parliaments on the other side of the Atlantic and in Europe. Although the precedent may not be entirely in point, it is clear that there are many lessons to be learned. In the main, those countries are miles ahead in terms of what is available to us. It is a great shame that the mother of Parliaments should not at least try to keep up with the times.
As a Scot who represents a rural area in south-east Scotland, I find it most frustrating that, for many weeks of the year, I am at home. I am not on holiday, but Parliament is in recess. Everyone understands that there is a substantial difference. I find it frustrating and difficult to continue the amount of work that I can achieve in Westminster when I am in my constituency for the long summer recess. If I had the advantage of the technological facilities that are now readily available, as a matter of course, even to medium-sized businesses in my constituency, I would be better able to continue the work that I would like to do. Increasingly, people seek access to me by fax machine or electronic mail, but I cannot respond to electronic mail. Although POLIS has limitations, access to it would allow us better to scrutinise the Executive which, after all, is what this place is supposed to be about.
I should not like anything that I have said to be taken as a suggestion that information technology can replace the invaluable personal service that we receive from the Library, the Computer Officer and others. However, much of the strain could be taken from them if hon. Members could use the machinery and the information technology themselves.
I am less worried about staff being trained. Staff have more time than we have and, in my experience, they are

more concerned with text generation. I am interested in having more access to data. Therefore, although I accept that training is an essential part of the whole package, when I try to persuade my colleagues to move into information technology and supply themselves with IBM-compatible personal computers, those who have had no access to information technology are confronted by a fear barrier.
Once one has established the difference between a disk operating system and a piece of software, one is halfway there. It takes no more than two hours if one applies one's mind to it. Most of my colleagues are intelligent enough to master that. A wee bit of push and access to a couple of hours' training by experts, just to cross that initial fear barrier, would generate not simply the threefold increase noted in the report—dramatic though that is—but much more.
The hon. Member for Copeland is absolutely right to say that the standardisation and centralisation of the hardware would have massive advantages in terms of system commonality. There may be a price to pay—and I note that the report rightly says that that would not necessarily mean limiting ourselves to a single supplier, which would be wrong. Apricot and Compaq—both well established firms which produce machines in this country to a high standard—provide a range of machines.
However, if we could achieve some sort of standardisation and if serving Members knew that there were three or four industry-standard software packages, they could be given a great deal of help and become confident. If they found that there was a quirk in their software package, a quick telephone call would sort it out because they would be dealing with only two or three industry-standard software packages. So a great deal could be gained from standardising the hardware and some of the software packages.
I spend some time following developments in information technology as best as I can. I must confess to the hon. Member for Copeland that I was among those who did not return the last questionnaire because I was too busy trying to move the paper across my desk. To that extent, I stand condemned. However, the hon. Gentleman can add me to the list of people who have machines and try to stay at the forefront of the technology. I must admit that even I find it difficult to work out whether there is an advantage to acquiring DOS 5 as apposed to DOS 3.3, but the experts would no doubt argue for hours about the relative merits.
If I could telephone an expert and say, "I have the standard hardware package and a couple of standard word processing and software packages—is this sensible?", the answer would be yes or no. That would avoid my having to spend hours reading computer magazines on train and plane journeys between my constituency and Westminster, so there are massive advantages to be had.
The Committee's work is valuable, and I hope that we shall not waste any more time. There are many reasons for proceeding, as the Select Committee suggests, as soon as possible. I almost said that I have only an academic interest in who is in Government after the next general election, but that is not true. If I have any influence in the next Government, one of the first measures that we should introduce to this place is a longer-term, more visionary approach to providing facilities for hon. Members who are re-elected.
I hope that tonight's debate will make it easier for those of us who are re-elected and any new Members to start afresh and be confident that, in the four or five years of the next Parliament, facilities will be available to enable us to act in a modern way, represent our constituencies and scrutinise the Executive to the limits of our power. I hope that that will be provided centrally by the Services Select Committee with the information technology that best enables it to do so.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was right to suggest that he had only an academic interest in the outcome of the next general election. I am confident that my colleagues and I will still be on this side of the Chamber and that the hon. Gentleman will still be on the other side gazing across at us. That is the only note of dissent which I wish to enter with the hon. Gentleman.
I join the general welcome that has been given to the report on computer services for hon. Members. It is unusual for me to become enthusiastic about a Select Committee report, but perhaps I am jaundiced by my membership of the Welsh Select Committee. I must admit that I read the original report when it was published in 1984. I was then a new Member of Parliament, and I was struck by what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) described as the faded gentility of the old-fashioned way in which we carry on our business.
I was excited by what I read in the original report, and thought of the possibilities that the new world of technology would open up. I hoped that it would equip us all and make us better legislators. Inevitably, press coverage of our consideration of the matter at that time was typified by a journalist who picked up a comment in the report about an hon. Member who said that his greatest need in new technology was to have a working telephone.
I was fascinated to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is linked up to the POLIS system. In 1984, I thought that we could have such links and indulge in our justified professional curiosity in pursuing matters about which some hon. Members are reluctant to trouble the excellent staff of the Library. We do not want to bother them with every question that occurs to us and some ideas are inevitably left behind. To have an opportunity to fish through POLIS or, better still, an expanded database, to pursue all the questions that hon. Members with a lively genuine interest should want to pursue would be a real addition. I express no criticism of the service that we receive from the House of Commons Library, which provides us with excellent briefings, but, six years after the original report, nothing has happened.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Copeland said about money, of necessity, being spent on providing computer services for staff and Officers of the House, but not for Members. I also noted the validity of his comment that better value for the taxpayer could be achieved by the use of common equipment from which hon. Members could select how to meet their needs.
Those of us whose secretaries and research assistants are not based here, in the Palace of Westminster, but who choose for good reasons to locate them in our constituencies provide a saving to the House. However, it

is not a total saving to the taxpayer, because we make provision for our secretaries and research assistants in our constituencies from our office costs allowance.
I have long noted that there is a difference in cost share—those Members who, like me, choose to base their staff outside the Palace of Westminster end up being treated unfairly, because they are making office space available in the Palace by purchasing or renting it elsewhere. We also provide the heating, lighting and cleaning in those outside offices, so that it does not have to be provided for us within the Palace. If they were based here, our secretaries and research assistants would have the basic issue of equipment—a desk, a chair, a filing cabinet and carpet to walk on—for which the cost of provision and maintenance would be borne by the Palace. That issue should be examined, and consideration given to whether the office cost allowance should be extended for those Members who choose to provide those expenses outside the Palace.
Another issue closely linked to the provision of computer services is the opportunity that could be taken to provide the Government telephone network for all of us with staff in our constituencies. The most common telephone call I make is to my secretary in the constituency. I try to take advantage of the GTN by dialling 7, so that the cost falls on the Palace of Westminster switchboard as a local call. However, that does not work the other way, and my secretary's call to me is her most frequent telephone call. If all Members were provided with a GTN system in their constituencies, that would provide a saving. Such an operation must be introduced if the report is to be implemented and we are to derive the benefit of the equipment and technology, both here in the House and in our constituencies.
I listened with the greatest of interest to the news that the new offices will have annunciators the double as commercial televisions. The absence of the availability of commercial televisions to us when we are in our offices or in the Chamber inevitably leads us to be in an ivory tower—often on the wrong occasions. We need the source of information on which so many of our constituents depend.
I am sure that Members have often returned home to their constituencies at the weekend to be asked whether they saw a certain television programme such as "Question Time"—one of the most obvious examples. Obviously, many Members will not have seen it because they were in the Chamber or travelling home on Thursday evening. That gap in our knowledge probably leads people to suspect us of being in an ivory tower, because it is not one known to our constituents.
A couple of years ago, I visited the new Parliament in Canberra. In providing a brand new Parliament building which is designed to be good for at least another 200 years, the Australians have taken the opportunity to provide all the latest facilities. There is a television link to the Chamber in the office of every Member, and all the other channels are available. I should think that the Whips would very much want the same system to be introduced here. In Australia, they know in advance who is to speak next and have control of their own television camera so that they can pan round the Chamber to see if the next speaker is in his or her place. If panic sets in because he or she were not there, the problem can be easily overcome.
There are a number of such examples, of which that is but a small one, of how televising the Chamber and the other use of commercial channels would be helpful. The


only danger is what that system might do for attendance in the Chamber. If there were more opportunity to view it from outside, from offices, attendance in the Chamber might be as low as now or even lower, except at peak times when doughnutting might take place.
I am enthused about the way the report points the way forward, and I hope that we shall make progress, and not continue the lack of advance of the past six years. As other hon. Members have said, we should seize the opportunity to make progress—and the word should be "now", not "tomorrow".

Mr. Simon Coombs: When I first arrived in the House in 1983, I took as much advice as possible from colleagues already here on what it was essential to know in order to function in this place. I was told that, provided one found the loos, one would be able to function in all ways as a perfectly adequate Member of Parliament. Therefore, the range of knowledge that I did not immediately acquire was substantial, and among the information that I was not given early on was which computer one should buy to be an effective Member of Parliament.
I went to a person whom I thought could give advice, someone who had been a fellow councillor on Reading borough council. I said to him, "You know about computers, Geoff." He said, "Yes, I do. You need a Commodore." Therefore, I have been incompatible for the past eight years. As one who feels for those other Members who found themselves in a similar position, I felt it appropriate to say a word or two on this important subject.
I came into the House in the 1980s. With the exception of the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I think that all those participating in the debate come from the more recent intakes to the House. We have been struck by what the report says about the services available to parliamentarians in other countries. I could not help noticing what the report said about Italy. It stated:
The situation in the Chamber of Deputies is very similar" to that in the Senate.
The central computer is an IBM 3090 Model 120S (shortly to be replaced by a Model 150J). Linked to this are two smaller systems, an IBM AS/400 Model B60 and an IBM 4381 Model 91 with altogether around 150 terminals, dedicated to supporting substantive (i.e. non-administrative) Parliamentary work. And the 12 Party Group offices are equipped with IBM PS/2 Model 60 Personal Computers and printers (not all linked to the central computer). There are also personal computers linked to the central system in each of the 13 Permanent Commission offices. Finally, the Chamber Research Department has a Phillips P7000 computer with 20 terminals. Deputies have access to all these facilities. As in the Senate, they make no contribution to their cost.
There are many other examples in the report that illustrate how far ahead other legislatures are. Why? It is fairly obvious that there is a generally low level of service to Members of this House across the board, and the computer service is no exception. Equally, if the number of hon. Members attending this debate is anything to go by, one must admit that there is a low level of interest in the subject. Why?
It would have been interesting if the Committee had looked at the relationship between the use of computer equipment and length of Members' service. I suspect that the more recently elected Members are those more likely to use computer equipment. That means that, over a period, as Members retire, so the percentage of Members who understand and want to use computers will progressively increase. It may not simply be a matter of educating existing Members, but may also involve the gradual turnover as new Members come into the House with each general election. That must mean that the level of understanding of information technology is rising all the time.
Having said that, I agree with the Committee that we should not go down the road of exercising compulsion as to the equipment that right hon. and hon. Members should use. Instead, we should provide in every office the plug that will allow the right equipment to be attached. That is not to say that every Member of Parliament should have a computer of one type or another. I support bulk purchase, but only on the basis that it offers the full commercial advantage that usually accrues from that practice—and not because we want to dictate to right hon. and hon. Members, who must continue to be their own men and women in deciding what is appropriate for them.
Recently, we have seen an enormous growth in the number of fax machines in the Palace. Perhaps we should switch soon to the bulk purchase of that equipment, in order to give Members of Parliament the advantage of so doing. I see no reason why we cannot do that immediately, because it would not require any increase in the availability of networking. Perhaps the Chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Copeland, can comment. I hope that suggestion will find favour with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Right hon. and hon. Members also need a closed user group to operate a telemail system such as Telecom Gold. The antiquity of the methods that right hon. and hon. Members use to contact one another now is extraordinary. It is almost impossible to get a message to another right hon. or hon. Member, whether they are in the Palace or elsewhere, unless they happen to be answering their phones. It would be far preferable to leave a telemail message, which one could be certain of being received by either the Member of Parliament or his or her secretary.
All that would add to the potential use of a system. We must ensure that the broad band network under consideration will be of sufficient capacity to meet future needs, not only because, as years go by, more and more right hon. and hon. Members will want to use the system, but because the volume of the potential usuage will grow. There is a danger that sufficient capacity will not be provided in the broad band network to meet all the possible uses that will emerge. All offices in the Palace and in the outbuildings should be network-linked, and we should plan ahead for such an arrangement as it comes on-stream.
I do not believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) suggested, that the availability of Chamber television coverage in the offices of right hon. and hon. Members would result in a lower attendance in the Chamber itself. I recall the argument that the televising of our proceedings would have a bad effect on the behaviour of right hon and hon. Members. That has been shown not to be true. Nor do I take the view that the provision of televisions in our offices would affect our


attendance in the Chamber. Instead, that facility would allow right hon. and hon. Members to keep in touch. I share the view expressed by others that right hon. and hon. Members are often the last to know what has happened in the Chamber or elsewhere in the world.
In recent months, I have questioned my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the provision of Sky satellite television to right hon. and hon. Members who ought to have access to the full range of stations. United Artists recently made a proposal concerning parliamentary proceedings. That is a good step forward, and I hope that the proposal can be extended. I also hope that we may enjoy news coverage not only by CNN, as we did during the Gulf crisis, but by Sky News, which is the British 24-hour news station from British Sky Broadcasting.
Right hon. and hon. Members could also have access to the video recordings, and with the right technology, would be able to call up on their own screens a news item or coverage of a particular incident in the House. One would not have to wait until tomorrow's newspapers to try to catch up, learning at second hand what had happened, according to the media. Instead, one could quickly reference an incident to which another right hon. or hon. Member or a constituent had drawn one's attention. Not to put too fine a point on it, such a facility would allow a Member of Parliament to check whether he was attacked during his absence from the Chamber in the way that a news report alleged earlier the same day or the day before.
Work also needs to be done on developing software that will enable right hon. and hon. Members to enjoy the full value of the hardware that might be the subject of bulk purchasing. Other hon. Members have referred to software that can serve as an electronic diary, handle a Member of Parliament's casework and so on. We probably all share the same needs in that regard. I see no reason why work on the provision of such software should not begin immediately and continue apace.
I believe that the cost of such an operation would be perfectly acceptable in political and economic terms. Mention has been made of cabling costs of £1·5 million. The cost to the public purse of the necessary hardware and software would be greater—but still a relatively small sum in comparison with the figures suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland. Members of Parliament would then be able to do a better job of representing their constituents and of controlling the Executive. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that is sometimes advanced, to the effect that the Executive want to prevent Back Benchers from doing their proper job of monitoring the Government's work. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is anxious to reassure us that that has never been in his mind.
An opportunity to replace the ancient annunciator system would permit a move in the direction suggested by the Committee. I share the hope that the process of improvement can be speeded up. It is a long time since the issue was last raised in the House, and a long time since the report was published. In fact, it was 16 days less than one year ago.
When I was a newcomer to the House, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was then Minister of State for Information Technology. He set in motion a revolution that introduced information technology to primary and secondary schools throughout the country.

The first children to benefit from that development of the mid-1980s could be among those who become Members of Parliament in the general election after next. That generation will be amazed to discover that we have taken so long to reach technology conclusions that are so obvious, so right and so necessary.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not suggest the establishment of half a dozen working parties to analyse the findings of the Sub-Committee. In my view, its work is excellent and stands on its own merits, and it ought to be . acted upon without further delay.

Mr. Keith Mans: I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who drew attention to the fact that we are having this debate nearly a year after the report was published. If nothing else, that shows the lack of importance that right hon. and hon. Members—given all the other things that are happening—attach to computerisation. That is a great pity. My first thought on reading the report was that it was very difficult to discuss networks before considering office accommodation. Some of us share offices that are some distance from the Palace. However, I realise that that is often an excuse for doing nothing.
Before coming to the House, I was in the computer industry for some years where I learned that one cannot wait for the next development but that decisions have to be taken and acted upon. Networks are invariably changed a few years after they are installed. I was at the sharp end of the computer industry, buying machines and trying to predict consumer demand, and I found that it was difficult to predict the way in which industry would move.
Desk-top publishing hit us almost before we realised it. Portability took rather longer, but it is now gathering momentum and might have changed earlier decisions on the report. The development of the fax machine in the past year has been quite extraordinary in terms of cost and extra facilities. That creates new demands and new ways of looking at problems associated with computing.
We should first create a network which should at least cover all hon. Members' offices and be flexible and simple. It should contain a database which can be expanded to incorporate extra facilities. It could contain our electoral rolls, because at present we spend a great deal of time trying to find out whether someone who has written to us is a constituent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon spoke about messages. Our message systems are efficient in their own way, but it is extraordinary that we cannot make use of the advances in computer technology to provide a more up-to-date message system. Extra information through television and radio channels needs to be provided in a much more user-friendly way. The network must be created as soon as possible.
I entirely agree with what has been said about training and advice. The problem encountered when introducing a new computer system to a company is that people are ignorant about its potential and about the sort of software, hardware, printers and peripherals that are needed to do the job properly. I suggest some sort of advice centre so that hon. Members can discuss their needs in a meaningful and knowledgeable way rather than in the somewhat amateurish and ignorant way that people tend to go about


it at the moment, which is to ask a friend for advice. When one asks a friend about a good idea, one does not always get the correct answer.
Overall, the report is good, and I wish that we had taken action on it before now. Having installed the network and made use of the advice centre to gain more knowledge about what we want, a basic personal computer, obviously IBM compatible, and a printer should be made available to each Member, and that should not affect the secretarial allowance. Hon. Members can experiment with the system and decide what they need because London Members will probably require a different set-up from Members with constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
Whether we like it or not, over the next 10 years every hon. Member will spend more money on electronic apparatus of one sort or another. In five or six years, we shall be using devices that we cannot even imagine now. I am sure that, five or six years ago, many hon. Members had never even seen a fax machine let alone used one.
Beyond the basic provision, there must be an element of choice. A classic example is the huge advance in the memory capacity of portable computers. The other day, I saw one that had 70 or 80 Mb of memory on a 586 chip. Such a technological increase is quite astounding. Bearing in mind the needs of hon. Members' in their constituency offices, their offices in this place and in their homes, portability will become more and more important. With the basic system in place, hon. Members may wish to use their secretarial allowance to buy other highly portable electronic devices.
I hope that the debate will help us to arrive at a firm conclusion along the lines that I have suggested. As I said, we should make progress with the network and training and with the provision of basic computer facilities. When hon. Members have gained some knowledge, they can make their requirements known and will be able to buy peripheral equipment to fit into the system.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke about the time at which the debate started. I had no idea when it would start. Given that we were dealing with Lords amendments and in view of the amount of business on the Order Paper, we might well have embarked on the debate in the middle of the night. I am glad that we did not, because this is an important debate, which deserves an appropriate time.
In holding the debate today, I was implementing a promise given to the hon. Member for Copeland that I would use my best endeavours to debate the report before the summer recess. As the hon. Gentleman said, compared with debates on some other Select Committee reports we have made rapid progress on this one by having the debate within the year in which the report was published.
My hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) complained about delay and said that we should move more swiftly. In endeavouring to hold the debate before the recess, I had it in mind that we would be able to make swift progress on the report's recommendations. I am delighted to see that

there has been general agreement on all matters except the result of the next general election. However, that is not material to the debate. Hon. Members feel that these are important matters and that it is imperative to get on with them.
The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Copeland and his Sub-Committee for their work in producing the report, in assessing the current use by hon. Members of computers and similar equipment, for making what the hon. Gentleman described as modest proposals for co-ordination in the use of such equipment, and for making progress in the House. The Sub-Committee has pointed the way in practical terms to the establishment of an information technology network which will enable hon. Members to communicate efficiently with colleagues and constituency offices. Other ways in which it will assist hon. Members have been mentioned in the debate. It will also enable hon. Members to take advantage of the powerful information services that are becoming available in the public and private sectors.
The hon. Member for Copeland referred to last year's survey of Members' computer equipment. That revealed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre pointed out, that many colleagues have used the opportunity of the improvement of the office costs allowance to increase the use of computers, word processors, fax machines and so on which are now penetrating the work of Members' offices. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, we are now talking about issues facing the average Member with an average office. We are no longer dealing with the frontiers of new technology but with the ordinary reality of the day-to-day work of most offices, most other business sectors and, as the hon. Gentleman said, education.
I have already said that most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate referred to the desirability of the House reaching decisions that would lead to early action to implement the recommendations of the Computer Sub-Committee. I fully support the Sub-Committee's proposals. I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Copeland for moving more quickly than his report advocates, although he made clear the reason for going at the pace he suggested—the need to obtain unanimous support. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I well understand that.
We are at a most important new stage in the evolution of the services provided for the House as a whole. The problems raised by the previous report of the Services Committee, to which reference has been made, were frequently quoted during the Ibbs inquiry to illustrate the need for the establishment of a more coherent structure for decisions concerning new services for the House. We already have in place a new director of finance and administration to implement part of the Ibbs report. If the House agrees, I hope that in the autumn we shall have the new Select Committees, including the Finance and Services Committee. That will enable sensible and coherent decisions to be made and full account to be taken of their costs.
Moreover, decisions will be made more quickly than has been the case in the past. My preference is for the more expensive decisions—I stress the more expensive decisions—that face us on the issue to be delayed until the new Ibbs arrangements can be in place and decisions taken through them. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who I know has had to leave the debate, that that is no reason for delay. He called for action now.


The Ibbs system will enable us to take those decisions more quickly and efficiently. I hope that the bulk of the decisions can be taken in that way. However, I believe that we can make useful progress towards implementing the report before we reach that point in the autumn. I shall return to this matter at the end of my speech.
As several hon. Members have made clear, there is now wide acceptance in the House of computers, word processors and so on. They are becoming increasingly normal in the day-to-day traffic between Members, Government Departments and officials of the House. The Computer Sub-Committee has also demonstrated that many Back Benchers—I suspect probably the majority by now—have made extensive use of their office costs allowance to purchase such equipment. Many would also like access to information services, such as the Library's POLIS service, and to some commercial information services. The steady improvement in the office costs allowance that has taken place during the lifetime of this Government has helped Members to make use of the new technologies. What we are talking about now is how to proceed further.
If I may follow up what the hon. Member for Copeland said in relation to the previous Services Committee report and the reaction to it, the feeling was that one had to bear in mind the fact that there are still some hon. Members who do not want the new technologies to be imposed upon them. My feeling, and that of most hon. Members who have spoken, is that the number of such Members of Parliament will decline substantially. However, their attitude has to be taken into account.
On the whole, I think that the Computer Sub-Committee has got the balance about right. It was right to say that the building will need to be re-cabled soon for the sake of the annunciator system. I share the Sub-Committee's view that it would be wrong to do so without making provision for the transmission of computerised information services. I am sure, too, that the Computer Sub-Committee was right to emphasise the potential advantages—a point made by the hon. Member for Copeland—of scale in the hulk purchase and maintenance of new office machinery through some sort of central agency. Equally, I am certain that the Sub-Committee was right not to suggest that we are ready to move over to a system in which office equipment is provided from central funds, with individual colleagues no longer having the choice about what equipment to purchase, let alone whether they want such equipment at all. My hon. Friends the Members for Swindon and for Wyre laid emphasis on the need for individual choice.
The overall aim of the Services Committee is set out in paragraph 28(c) of its report. I quote it because, although I was not a member of the Committee, its policy has my unqualified support. The Services Committee says that the objective is that
the House should now adopt as long-term policy the aim of providing the best available information technology services for Members from central funds, while at the same time preserving a reasonable degree of individual discretion Kn the choice of systems for use by Members and their staffs.
That general aim was endorsed by all hon. Members who spoke in the debate. It represents an important declaration of intent by the House to accept responsibility for ensuring the best possible computer services for Members, in much

the same way as we have now accepted responsibility for providing a minimum standard of basic office accommodation for all Members and their staff.
As has been pointed out, we are not talking just about equipment for individual Members. We are talking about POLIS and various other services that can be plugged in. When I re-read the Computer Sub-Committee's report, I was struck by the wealth of communication and information services that would become available through the establishment of a network. The memorandum from the Library—reproduced on pages 40 to 46 of the report —mentions the vast range of services to which I have just referred. I agree with all those who have said that this will improve the way in which we do our jobs and how we communicate with our constituents.
The Sub-Committee's report also argues in favour of a new cable network for the very straightforward and practical reason that it would simultaneously provide the framework for information technology services and enable the annunciator system to be replaced and all Members to receive the whole range of public service television broadcasts in their offices. I am wholly in favour of that development, particularly since some Members—notably those who will have offfices in the phase 1 building from October—either have or will have access to such services.
Paragraph 47 of the Sub-Committee's report suggests that the main costs of the installation of a new broad-band cable should fall on the Vote of the House of Commons Commission rather than on the parliamentary works budget. The Sub-Committee may be right about that. Indeed, I suspect that it will be right, although discussions need to be held between the parties concerned. Until now, these costs have been seen as falling on the parliamentary works budget. It is likely that that budget will become part of the responsibility of the Commission in the near future. We shall still have to justify the expenditure and ensure that a proper attribution of costs is made, but I believe that that is the way that this matter will proceed.
That brings me to the point about which I was asked by the hon. Member for Copeland—the main proposals for immediate action, contained in paragraphs 44 and 57 of the report. They are for discussions to identify the kind of cable needed for a network and for a working party to recommend a shortlist of approved equipment. I believe that these matters could now be put in hand very swiftly. I take the general endorsement of the report by hon. Members as a clear indication that those hon. Members who have an interest in these matters approve of the report and want us to get on with it.
In the light of the debate, therefore, I propose to ask the House of Commons Commission to authorise the limited amount of expenditure that is needed to allow the initial studies proposed by the Sub-Committee to be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Once the various working parties have reported to the Computer Sub-Committee—or to its post-Ibbs successor—the way should be open for a firm recommendation to be made to the Commission, with the advice of the Finance and Services Committee, to allow planning for a new cable network to be put in hand. I am advised that these initial studies should be speedy affairs. Therefore, I hope and expect that serious plans for the cable network should be put in hand in the autumn.
I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Copeland the response that he sought. Again, may I say how grateful the House is to him for the work that he has done. On that basis, knowing that there is a different type of Adjournment debate to follow, I beg to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Before the Leader of the House does that, I see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) wishes to reply.

Dr. Cunningham: The speech by the Leader of the House was excellent news for hon. Members, and I warmly welcome his positive response to the debate. In 21 years in the House, I cannot remember a single occasion on which everyone who followed me in the debate agreed with me —it is worth putting that, if nothing else, on record this evening. I suppose that I should enjoy it while it lasts, because I do not expect it to become permanent.
The speeches of the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and of the Leader of the House were well worth listening to. I am grateful for their kind comments about the report which reflect not only on me as Chairman of the Sub-Committee but on all members of the Sub-Committee, whom I thank for their work. It is appropriate also to place on record our thanks to the Clerk and to the advisers to the Committee. Clearly a report that can command such unanimous support as this one has considerable merit, if not a unique character.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for obviating what may have been a problem, in that this has been a debate on the Adjournment and not a debate on a motion to take note of the Committee's report. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman on the Commission and elsewhere in order to make the urgent progress which hon. Members so clearly desire.

Mr. MacGregor: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 6, Business of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: Not moved.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Motion No. 6 was not moved. Will the Leader of the House explain why? The motion was on the Order Paper and there was no announcement, until recently, that it would be withdrawn. Did that happen because there would have been time to debate that normally procedural motion? It is almost certainly the truth that it could have been objected to after 10 o'clock, so the Government would not normally have withdrawn it.
As the main subject of the procedural motion, to limit the debate to an hour and a half, is to take place tomorrow night—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now seeking to debate the motion. The motion was not moved, so I am obliged to proceed to the next business. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order, I will hear it.

Mr. Cryer: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the motion be on tomorrow's Order Paper? The business for this week has been settled and announced by the Leader of the House. If the motion is on tomorrow's Order Paper, will time be allocated for debate in the usual way before we move on to the business that is to be regulated by the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

PETITION

Royal Welch Fusiliers

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to ask leave to present a petition from the length and breadth of Wales by the friends of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. The petition was instigated at short notice, but it encountered huge public support. The Royal Welch Fusiliers have won magnificent battle honours and I have found remarkable support for them throughout Wales, which perhaps demonstrates the respect and honour felt for them.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
The humble Petition of friends of the Royal Welch Fusiliers showeth that the Royal Welch Fusiliers, part of the Prince of Wales's Division, is faced with possible amalgamation with an English regiment—a move which effectively amounts to the disbandment of the regiment and the ending of 300 years of tradition.
Under the present plans, reduction in the strength of the Prince of Wales's Division and the virtual disappearance of the Royal Welch Fusiliers would leave Wales with 25 per cent. less than its fair share of the infantry. Disbandment will have disastrous economic consequences for Wales, with the eventual loss of up to 100,000 jobs and obvious implications for the whole Welsh economy.
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will support us by seeking assurances from the Government that the Royal Welch Fusiliers is not disbanded and that Wales is not treated less fairly than Scotland is. And your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray.
The petition was signed by Brigadier Anthony C. Vivian, CBE, former colonel of the regiment, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, regimental headquarters, Hightown barracks, Wrexham, Clwyd.

To lie upon the Table.

Bypasses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. James Cran: I am glad to be able to comment on the Government's bypass programme, which affects almost every constituency, including my own and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who unfortunately cannot be here.
I do not wish to attack the Government's record, since there is no reason to do so. Having checked, I find that their record is good. For instance, transport supplementary grant for 1991–92 is £318 million, a 17 per cent. increase on the previous year. Today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a further 15 bypasses at a cost of £85 million. Therefore, I start from the premise that the Government understand why the construction of as many bypasses as possible is beneficial. Clearly, it reduces accidents. I note from an unpublished study by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory that rural bypasses result in up to a 32 per cent. reduction in accidents. They are therefore clearly desirable.
My village of Tickton in east Yorkshire is lucky enough to have a bypass, which brings me to another advantage of bypasses. That is simply that they separate me and my neighbours from all the heavy traffic which previously went through the centre of my village. Last, but by no means least, there is a gain to the environment. Less congestion means lower carbon dioxide emissions. I am predisposed to the view that the Government understand all that. Organisations such as the British Road Federation have told me that the Government should accelerate the programme. No hon. Member would disagree.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington has now been able to come to the House motivated no doubt by the importance of the subject. My constituency has moreover benefited from the Government's programme. Recently, the Humber bridge northern approach road was completed. It is not exactly a bypass, but it acts as one and alleviates traffic problems in all the villages in the Haltemprice area. Skidby is not in my constituency, but the recent bypass benefits my constituents, as does the southern bypass for Beverley.
As my hon. Friend the Minister understands, demand for bypasses is never ending. That is why Humberside county council proposes three major schemes for Government support in its transport policies programme for 1991–92. It proposed the Peakes Parkway scheme in Grimsby, the Leven-Brandesburton bypass, which is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), and the Great Union street improvement scheme in Hull. They are all very worthy schemes, and I am sure that—in the fulness of time—they will receive the approval that is being sought from the Government.
However, I shall deal specifically with the LevenBrandesburton bypass because it illustrates well why the Government have a road improvement programme at all. I quote from the consultative document of Humberside county council, which states exactly how the council feels about the need for a bypass in the area. It states:


The A165 forms part of the primary route network within the County and it carries exceptional peak traffic in the holiday season.
A considerable amount of heavy vehicular traffic also goes through Leven and Brandesburton because the manufacture of mobile buildings for industrial use is carried out in that part of east Yorkshire. The caravans are wide, and all or nearly all of them have to be transported through those two villages.
Humberside county council's consultative document continues:
The present route … is characterised by sharp bends, narrow carriageways, a large number of accesses, poor visibility and little safe overtaking opportunity. The road passes through Leven where there are substandard width footways for pedestrian access … there are parts of the road where forward visibility is very restricted and … crossing the road can be hazardous.
It is perfectly clear that Humberside county council is wholly convinced of the need for the bypass as it could not have used stronger language in its advocacy of this project. Indeed, the council's 1991–92 transport policy programme stated:
The A165 has a high accident record and by bypassing the villages the scheme should show major accident savings.
That is very strong language.
It would be usual for an hon. Member now to plead with the Minister for funding for that project. Anyone listening to the debate might think that the Government had not already given approval or finance, but that is not so. The Minister for Roads and Traffic has been very patient—he met me, County Councillor Arthur Pollard and Borough Councillor Mrs. Pat Ablett and gave us a considerable amount of his time. He examined many photographs which show how difficult—almost impossible —it is for traffic to get through the two villages and on the basis of that and, I am sure, of independent assessment, he concluded that the bypass should be approved and given finance—and that is precisely what the Government did on 17 December last year.
It is entirely understandable that the inhabitants of both villages were delighted because it is no secret that they have been waiting for a bypass for many years. Industry, in the form of Lada cars, for instance, which take transporters through the village, and Transline, which transports the mobile buildings through them, were also utterly delighted because they do not want to pollute the villages or cause the difficulties that have undoubtedly existed until now.
That begs the question, why raise the issue at all? Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have given approval and finance for, I think, half the project, the county council—in this case, Humberside—has decided to cancel the bypass. I should perhaps use the word "cancel" carefully, because, after considerable public pressure, there are signs that the council might be rethinking its position on the subject.
The Minister and other hon. Members might be interested to know that what particularly irritated people was the manner in which the decision was taken which left much to be desired. The decision was not taken formally in the transportation committee or ratified by the full council although that may eventually occur. It was merely announced in a fairly brutal fashion by the chairman of the transportation committee and by the leader of the council. That is despite the fact that those gentlemen and the

council proposed the bypass in the first place and, indeed, highlighted the fact that they were to proceed with it in the community charge bills that we all subsequently received.
Therefore, I am not here to ask the Minister to defend that action because it is not his responsibility—

Mr. John Townend: Was political pique not the original reason for cancelling the bypass because the socialist leader of the county council objected to a very good speech made by my hon. Friend criticising the profligate spending of the council? I wonder if my hon. Friend agrees that it is no wonder that people in our part of the country have revolted against Humberside and demanded its abolition? We are very pleased about the result of the Boundary Commission report, which was published last week.

Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. With the unerring timing that he shows in the House, he has anticipated my remarks. We all find it difficult to understand why the county council took such a decision, because usually county councils complain that the Government have not given them the money to proceed with a proposal. That is not the case in this instance because the Government have done so.
To satisfy my hon. Friend, I may merely quote from the Hull Daily Mail of 21 June this year. That paper and, indeed, all the newspapers in that region of East Yorkshire have done a superb job in articulating the outrage felt by many people about an arbitrary and, as my hon. Friend said, clearly political decision. What did the leader of the county council say? One assumes that these are his words as I am quoting from a letter to the editor. He said:
the Hull Daily Mail has come out in total support of an early start on the Leven bypass which will cost almost £10 million … Critics who suggest that the county council is being vindictive"—
it is, of course, quite clear that it is—
over the Leven bypass fail to appreciate the difficulties we face … Our problem could be eased substantially with the support of Mr Cran. If he were to join us in pressing the Government to recognise the difficulties we face—and reflect them in our SSA this December",
the Leven bypass could go ahead. As that comes from the horse's mouth, so to speak, I would appreciate it if the Minister would address that particular point.
It is clear to all of us who have examined the decision that it was a political one. I suspect that no one will be surprised at the great disappointment in the villages of Leven and Brandesburton, where people are astonished and indeed feel that they have been treated unjustly. They are trying to rectify the position by speaking to the council and trying to get the council to change its mind. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington nor I have sought to dissuade them from that course. If they succeed, we shall all be delighted, but I suspect that that will not occur.
Who therefore protects the villagers of Leven and Brandesburton? It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members that those people look to the Government, as I fear that everyone does, and to the House to make a judgment about the natural justice —or in this case injustice—of what has happened. They look to the Minister to provide some help, although that may prove difficult as the Minister has already promised half the cost of the scheme. They also look to the Minister to answer a number of questions, if he can.
My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington want to know about the Government's attitude to the high-handed, cavalier and undoubtedly political decision. My constituents also want to know whether, in the Government's view, the county council's decision is legally based. Moneys have been committed in the current budget and, I am led to believe, those moneys are being spent. The whole exercise was advertised through the community charge bills to the whole community in the Humberside county council area and everyone there expects the bypass to go ahead.
My constituents look to the Minister to inquire into the arbitrary and highly irregular decision by the county council. Will my hon. Friend tell us how long the grant approval that he has given will last? Not unnaturally, my constituents are trying to convince the county council to change the decision. They would be wasting their time if the grant approval did not last for any length of time.
There should be no politics on this issue. The county council has conceded that it is a matter of safety. Anyone who considers the question of bypasses knows perfectly well that they are highly desirable. The Government are doing their best to provide bypasses at the speed at which they should, and I am satisfied that they are doing that. Against that background, can my hon. Friend the Minister suggest to my constituents what they can do to get a bypass in Leven and Brandesburton?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I know better than to try to intrude in the affairs of Humberside. However, I thank the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), whose good fortune it is that this debate on an important subject of principle has come on rather earlier than he could have expected, for giving me a minute or two. He may have problems with the Humber bridge, but I have problems as the Member of Parliament representing the south side of the eldest of the three sisters of the Forth bridge. I wish to engage the Minister's attention on that subject. I have talked to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has direct responsibility for the matter at the Scottish Office. I assuage him with the observation that anything that I propose will be greatly to the personal convenience of the Secretary of State for Transport, who is my Parliamentary neighbour and who would benefit greatly from my proposals.
My first concern is the Barnton roundabout. As is the case with roundabouts in a number of cities, it gets choked, and to such an extent that on summer mornings, six days a week, the traffic tails back as far as the Forth bridge. It is one of Europe's biggest choke points. With all the talk about building a second Forth bridge, I ask those with access to Treasury strings whether it would not be better to help Lothian regional council at least to try at Barnton the kind of flyover which, I am told by James Provan, the recent Conservative Member of the European Parliament for North-East Scotland, has been tried with great success in Antwerp. Various European cities have met the problem and in a relatively short time have erected a series of flyovers which at least alleviate the problem even if they do not completely solve it.
If the alternative is a second bridge across the Forth, 1, as a person with considerable local knowledge, warn that it would be very much more difficult to build the third Forth bridge than it was to build the second—if the rail

bridge is the first—because the geology of crossing the Forth is, I am told, far more difficult at any possible site. The best site was taken by the bridge built in the 1960s.
The hon. Member for Beverley referred to carbon dioxide emissions. The gross bottleneck causes problems such as carbon dioxide, a waste of petrol, a waste of busy people's time, frayed nerves and hassle. It all mounts up to an environmental horror. None the less, one must ask to what extent part of the trouble is caused by the existence of tolls, which slow down the flow of traffic. I have never understood what the difference is between exacting money from the motoring public for going over water and not exacting money from them when they go over lengths of motorway which are almost as expensive and difficult to construct. I cannot see that there is a qualitative difference in what we are asking people to do.
Ten years ago—I do not see that it is different now—it was twelve and a half times more expensive to extract money in the form of tolls than from the collection of the standard rate of income tax. It is an extraordinarily inefficient way in which to raise revenue. The problem has become acute because tolls add to delays. I put a marker in the Minister's mind. Will the Department of Transport, along with the Scottish Office, consider the whole question of the Forth bridge? Will they talk properly to Lothian region to see whether the problem can be solved?
The second area that desperately needs a bypass is Newbridge. When I mentioned to the hon. Member for Eastwood what I was going to say tonight, he volunteered the information that it often took him rather longer to go from Newbridge, which is on the city outskirts, into the centre of Edinburgh than it did to go from his own city of Glasgow—indeed, from the other side of it because England is on the far side of Glasgow from Edinburgh —to the Edinburgh city boundary. That is how bad things have become. There should be discussions between Lothian region, the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport about what could be done in terms of a flyover.
I suppose that we must all register our personal convenience and not our personal interests. However, as I live in my constituency, I must travel here every Monday on the 7 am shuttle or the 7.10 am British Midland flight, or leave my journey until much later in the morning. It is not possible to travel from the west of the city without reckoning on a 30-minute or 45-minute delay, to catch the 8 am, 9 am or 10 am flight to London. The personal convenience of hon. Members or others is not the dominant factor. I just refer to that as an example of how acute the position has become in relation to Newbridge.
It would be remiss of me not to refer to the dreadful accident on the Al on the other side of the city that was reported on our television screens. Children were killed in that accident at 2.30 am as they travelled down from Alness. The accident occurred in one of those fogs that occur in the area. That stretch of road is very dangerous.
After every dreadful accident, I suppose people automatically say that something must be done about a road, but the issue is overtaken by other things and people forget about it. People also say that it is not the road that is at fault, but the driver. However, that stretch of road is particularly dangerous. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who appeared on television and said that he and the local authorities asked for something to be done about that road. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beverley for allowing me to participate in the debate.

Sir John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on his far-sightedness in choosing a subject that is important for Opposition and Conservative Members. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he told the House about the problems concerning his constituency.
A short while ago, I was penning a letter to Mr. Speaker in the hope that I might be selected for an Adjournment debate on bypasses. I thought that I would take this opportunity to try to kill two birds very briefly with one stone and refer to the problems in my constituency which have been building up for some time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for being kind enough to send me not one, but two letters today. The first refers to road safety on the A47 at Skeffington. Skeffington has been the subject of a bypass programme and I am glad to learn today that the road improvement on the busy A47 east from the city of Leicester is to be transferred from the regional to the national roads programme. I was also delighted to learn that the scheme forms part of an £85 million national package of bypasses for local schemes that have just been announced.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic was kind enough to send me a copy of the press release and a note about the fact that Market Harborough in my constituency is one of the towns selected for the bypass demonstration project.
Like everyone else, I have every confidence in the generosity, kindness and good judgment of my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that the selection of Market Harborough's bypass, which is now being built—the A6 bypass north and south—is something for which we will all be grateful. However, it is not too clear what the selection involves.
In his letter today, my hon. Friend the Minister says that Market Harborough has been nominated for the much sought after demonstration project by the Market Harborough local authority. However, some of the enclosures to which he refers are difficult for the layman to understand. The press release refers to a traffic calming programme. What is that? I am extremely foolish not to know what such a programme involves, but that is part of the official announcement that, I am delighted to say, has been made today. I should be more than grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain briefly what such a programme involves.
I was going to write to Mr. Speaker to seek an Adjournment debate about a bypass for a project that has plagued my constituency for 30 years. The issue is not unrelated to the M1-Al link road, of which most hon. Members will be aware. Of course, all local authorities in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire are full supporters of the M1-Al link road, which is nearing completion. However, so great is the east-west traffic on the A427, which presently runs parallel to the link road, and so much is congestion increasing because the gap in the M1-A1 link road has not yet been filled, that some villages on the A427 in Leicestershire, nearly all of which are in Harborough constituency, are becoming very choked and in a dangerous state. For instance, in the village of Theddingworth, from which a deputation came to see me

the other day at my constituency interview session, there have been no fewer than 16 accidents on the A427 in the past half year.
My hon. Friend the Minister cannot know everything —although he knows an awful lot—but his officials will tell him that this matter has nothing to do with him; it is not a Department road, it is a county council road. The purpose of my Adjournment debate would have been to point out that I cannot remain silent any longer without a request for the taking over of many of the important trunk roads which are not adopted by the Department. I cannot remain silent any longer in face of the transparent need for that taking over to take place at an early date. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said that he supported the abolition of the north Humberside authority because of culpable misconduct.
I, too, hope that the review that is now taking place will lead to a careful reconsideration of the position of the Leicestershire county council, certainly in respect of transportation, which needs to be removed from it altogether. I can see no reason at all why the role of the effective and efficient district and borough councils in Leicestershire cannot be expanded and Leicestershire county council completely abolished.
I do not say that lightly. The reason why I say it is that, 22 years ago, Leicestershire county council promised a by-pass of Theddingworth. The route was approved by the county council, and £1 million or so was allotted. Work was due to commence, and then, lo and behold, the then Minister for Transport said, "We are going to build a wonderful MI-Al link road in Northamptonshire, just south of the A427." As soon as that announcement was made, all work on the Theddingworth bypass ceased and traffic was allowed to go through it. That was 22 years ago.
It has been pointed out to Leicestershire county council that there is a danger to life and limb on the A427. The situation is so intolerable that it should not be allowed to continue. It has now come up with another date, 1991, to build the Theddingworth bypass, but the latest announcement is that it cannot be at all sure of that date.
Quite frankly, I am fed up with the county council on this matter. It has behaved disgracefully. If ever there was a case for a unitary authority in respect of road traffic management matters and the recommendation of a bypass programme, it is the craven role of Leicestershire county council over Theddingworth and its population for the past 25 years. I am delighted that the Minister is kind enough to be present, and I hope that he will act on a matter of concern for all my constituents.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on raising an issue that is important to many of us. I feel honoured to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). When I first became a Member of the House—a long time ago—as one of 158 new Members, my hon. Friend was exceptionally kind not only to me but to my secretary, who was also new to the House, and neither she nor I have ever forgotten it. My hon. Friend is very much loved by both of us and by many other colleagues. I am delighted to see him in his place.
Unlike many other parts of the country, my constituency of Derbyshire, South is now very busy, partly


because we have the largest building site in Europe—the Toyota factory, which is now being built right opposite my house. I am pleased to see it—there is no NIMBY in my area. The result is that unemployment in the area is below 5 per cent. and two-car households are now common in South Derbyshire. Indeed, if recent canvassing is anything to go by, families with three, four or more cars are increasingly common in south Derbyshire.
We are a rural area, with more than 50 villages, and our traffic problems have rapidly become acute. The problem is driving many of my constituents absolutely scatty. Most of the roads in the area are country lanes and we would be in some difficulties even without the growth in traffic that the increased economic activity has generated. The problem in many villages would be much worse if it were not for the weight restrictions on some of their roads. However, they mean that the traffic must go somewhere else—it cannot just disappear—and it tends to go through the slightly larger villages, where traffic restrictions are not in place.
The fact that the problem is substantially a local one —we do not blame anybody else for it—is shown by the recent speeding problem in the village of Repton. The Repton people complained bitterly to the police about the speeding and the police naturally responded by setting up a speed trap for a couple of days. Nearly 400 people were found to be exceeding the 30-mile an hour speed limit as they drove through the village; 90-odd of them received a ticket and the rest were cautioned. About 75 per cent. of those found to be speeding turned out to live in the village or its immediate vicinity. As one can imagine, that produced some rather red faces, but it proved that traffic in the area is considerable and that the roads are not coping with it.
A couple of years ago, I took a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) at the Department of Transport. We were most grateful to the Department and to my hon. Friend for the interest, concern and consideration that was shown to south Derbyshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, in a slightly puzzled way, that we were the first delegation that he had seen for some time to ask for road building rather than insisting that a road should be built somewhere else. We actually wanted a road built in South Derbyshire—and the quicker the better.
The result has been gratifying. One bypass is already under construction—for the substantial village of Etwall —and there are more to come. We are expecting bypasses for the villages of Hatton, Hilton and Foston. A public inquiry was held last autumn and a decision is expected this autumn. That bypass is part of a road connection system that is due to run from Stoke to Derby and then across to the M1—the M6 to M1 link, which will bring considerable relief to the M6 north of Birmingham and also provide a link to the Toyota factory.
The line for that development was dealt with at the same public inquiry last year that considered the bypasses for Hatton, Hilton and Foston. The total cost of the M6-M1 link will be £150 million or more. The link will entail constructing a new bridge across the River Trent, which will be a substantial undertaking. We do not underestimate the amount of effort, time, skill and construction and planning expertise that will be involved. I should like to put our gratitude for that on the record.
None of this was possible under the previous Administration. The developments were talked about for the first time more than 20 years ago. In 1976, the line of the new route was drawn, but it was one of the casualties of the previous Government's efforts at spending money that they did not have. As a result, in 1976, that line was left on the piece of paper and no further progress was made. On the other hand, we are now very pleased with the progress that has been made.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions. I recognise that he might not be able to respond to them tonight, but I hope that he will be kind enough to write to me about them. First, as I hope that I have hinted in my brief contribution, the new road is a matter of considerable urgency to my constituents. It is becoming increasingly difficult to explain to constituents why the road does not yet exist, why the traffic is still going through the villages and why, in villages such as Willington, there is a snarl-up every morning and every night extending right through into the dual carriageways.
We now have much more dangerous and lethal roads than we used to have. A series of my young constituents have been killed on roads in places where there should he bypasses. I find it as distressing as the local police and funeral directors do when we are obliged to try to explain to the families why there are no new roads yet, and why the bypasses have not been built.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we can speed up the decision-making as soon as possible and ensure that the programme for the link road between Stoke and Derby and the M1 does not slip in any way. It is becoming increasingly important that we hold to all the timetables.
On present estimates, the Toyota factory will produce 100,000 cars a year, but that figure is expected to increase to 200,000 by 1995–96. All the industry estimates show that by the end of the century the factory will produce 400,000 cars a year. Although I hope that many of those cars will be sent by rail, if we can get British Rail to co-operate —that is another fairly dodgy question—those estimates nevertheless imply an enormous amount of supplies coming in, and many staff coming in and out. On current estimates, the number of staff movements in and out of the factory by 1995–96 is likely to be about 6,000 a day. If the estimates are accurate—and I think that they are—we have to take on board the fact that the Toyota factory will generate an enormous amount of traffic on the roads.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that the present programme will not slip, and that the Department of Transport will accord the matter the same urgency as we do.
The second problem about which I want to ask my hon. Friend concerns connections to the new road. When new roads are built, especially the good quality dual carriageways for which we hope, land on either side of them becomes valuable. There are now a number of proposals on the books for developing sites that are otherwise of no special value. For example, there is an old airfield at Church Broughton, a Ministry of Defence depot at Hilton and one or two other such sites, which have suddenly become valuable and useful. They are close to the Toyota site; they would be connected directly by road and in one or two cases they might be connected by rail, too.
The difficulty is that the Department of Transport insists on two conditions. First, it insists that, if there is to be a connection to the new road, the whole works, the complete operation, must be there right from the start even


though it may be several years before the site will come into use. Department officials appear to be insisting that on one site the whole connection for a development covering 200-odd acres must be in place before the first acre is let. I understand their arguments, but the trouble is that that course of action is extremely expensive.
The second problem that the officials present is that they insist that the developer pays the lot. With a £4 million or £5 million connection for a site whose total infrastructure costs may be of the same order, that can make the whole development financially unviable. I should like to see more realistic attitudes, so that connections for sites could be developed partially on a stepped, staged basis. That would be helpful. The present all-or-nothing arrangements are unrealistic and unfair.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could enlighten me on the other matter that concerns me, as no hon. Members from any of the other parties are here. I am concerned about the comments on the road-building programme made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I have written to the hon. Gentleman about what he said but have had no reply. I understand that, speaking at a construction industry conference in Edinburgh in April, in a speech that was well reported in the construction industry press, the hon. Gentleman said that if the Opposition were elected, the first thing that they would do would be to slap a moratorium on all road building.
I can understand that one might want to review the road-building programme, but I am most alarmed at any proposal to introduce a moratorium. In my letter I asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East whether his moratorium would apply to my road in South Derbyshire, but I have had no reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) may be worried about the attitude of our hon. Friend the Minister to his new road, but he would have a heck of a lot more to worry about if the Opposition were in charge.

Mr. Cran: I must clarify the point. The Government have already given financial approval for the LevenBrandsburton bypass. The problem is not the Government but my county council, Humberside.

Mrs. Currie: I heard most of what my hon. Friend said. I put it to him again that financial approval is one thing but that, until the pennies are actually spent and the work done, the road is not built. If the Opposition got in, and if a moratorium were called immediately, the odds are that the bypass would go the same way as my road went in 1976: it would not get built. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw the problem to the attention of his constituents, especially those who think it would not matter much if they voted Labour next time. It would matter a great deal. That is a matter of considerable concern. Perhaps the Minister will check out the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in April, which was well reported in the construction press, and say whether there is anything that we can do about it.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, and I was interested to hear what she said about the Opposition. Can she tell us which Opposition

party she had in mind? Is she aware of the Liberal Democrats' views—or do they not have any views about road building?

Mrs. Currie: That is an interesting proposition. I share my hon. Friend's consternation at the apparent position of the Labour party. The remarks were certainly made in public, and the speech was handed out to the press. I am also somewhat alarmed because, for the first time in recent history, a Labour spokesman, talking about what the Labour party might do if it won power, was prepared to say that it would stop spending money. Most of the time, Labour spokesmen say that they will increase spending, and so far, the total bill amounts to about £40 billion. As for the Liberal Democrats, they will as usual try to determine on which side of the fence the grass is greener and jump over it at that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will check out the Liberal Democrats' policies and let the rest of us know.
We in south Derbyshire are very pleased at developments over the bypasses, which are urgently needed. I live in a very pretty, rural area. It is no longer quite as tranquil as it used to be. It is a busy area. My constituents are working. They drive to work, and in pursuit of their leisure activities, with their families. I am pleased about that, but there is a cost in terms of increased congestion and danger on our roads. I am convinced that the bypass programme that is under way will be of major assistance. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the points that I have made, both about urgency and about the necessity of creating decent business connections with the new road, and perhaps be kind enough to write to me?

Mr. John Townend: 1 am pleased to have the opportunity, because we have some spare time tonight, to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on the question of the Leven-Brandsburton bypass. We should put on record the enormous amount of excellent work that my hon. Friend has done on that bypass. I am sure that all his constituents are very grateful to him for it. When the leader of the county council made that political decision, he may have thought that he would undermine my hon. Friend's position in his constituency, in fact, he did the exact opposite. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not need any additional support, but no doubt he will get significant additional support as a result.
As my hon. Friend said, the road will principally bypass a large village in his constituency, but it will end just outside a village in my constituency, and my constituency is interested for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. Friend said, there is a large industrial estate in Brandsburton which generates a considerable amount of traffic. Transline is a leading manufacturer of portable buildings. Its portable offices and homes have to be carried on large transporters, which go through Leven. At times, one wonders how they get through the main street when there is a large lorry coming the other way.
The bypass is also on the A1056 which is the main tourist artery from the west riding, Beverley and Hull into Bridlington. The tourist trade is very important to Bridlington. In the summer that road carries an enormous amount of traffic. I am afraid to say that it is a dangerous road. We have an awful lot of accidents on it, some of which have, regrettably, resulted in fatalities.
The road also has a major junction with the main road to Hornsea—again in my constituency. Hornsea is another seaside town which is dependent on the tourist trade. At Catwick, which is two miles down the road, there is another Sunday market. At the weekends the traffic is horrendous. There can be tailbacks, for several miles at this dangerous and congested place.
It was a great shock to the people of Leven, who have been waiting for the bypass for so many years, when the project was cancelled. Government approval had been granted and the Government had agreed to put up 50 per cent. of the money. The project was in the county council's budget. It was cancelled by the socialist leader of the council out of pique, because he objected to the criticisms of the council made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley.
If the Leader of the council had bothered to read my speeches he would have realised that I have been making the same criticisms as my hon. Friend for the past three or four years. Before I was privileged to be elected to this place I was the leader of the county council when the Conservatives were in control. During those years we never increased the rates by more than the rate of inflation. Since the Conservatives lost control, there has never been a year in which the rates have not increased by significantly more than the rate of inflation. Indeed, the community charge is excessive to the extent of about £90 per person.
The cancellation of the project was a bit much from Councillor Geraghty, because he has presided over one of the most profligate councils in the country. It wastes money which could well go towards the bypass on items such as fax machines for councillors, and a county council newspaper which is a propaganda publication for the Labour party.
The council has made enormous losses on an ice rink in Hull, which should never be run by the county council. It should be run by an efficient company in the leisure service. The council tried to prevent the school cleaning contract from being put out to private tender. The direct labour organisation put in a low bid and lost a fortune on the tender. Its bid was drawn up on the basis that it needed far fewer staff than were employed by the county council, but it then refused to make those staff redundant. That cost the county council about £1 million.
It is ridiculous for Councillor Geraghty to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and I have it in our hands to allow the bypass to be started by putting pressure on my hon. Friend the Minister to increase the standard spending assessment. The money was already in the council's budget.
This should not be a political matter. It is a matter of the environment, safety, people's lives and children's lives. The road is a death trap. It bisects my hon. Friend's village. The traffic is so bad that for many days in the year it is not a village but two villages. One hears many a time criticism from the Opposition Benches that we are putting money before people and before lives. This is a case in which the socialist county council is putting politics before people and the safety of men, women and children.

Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend remarked that the county council is spending about £90 per person over the figure that it should spend. Does he agree that if the county council undertook a proper review of its expenditure across its activities, both he and I would have no difficulty? In this case the county council has not done that. It has not

conducted itself in the proper business fashion. It has chosen one capital item to achieve such savings as it would like. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not the way to run a business?

Mr. Townend: I agree 100 per cent. The fallaciousness of the leader of the county council's position and, given his reason for not going ahead with the bypass, his dishonesty, have been revealed in the past two weeks when the county council decided to go ahead with a relief road for an industrial estate in south Humberside. If the county council did not have the money for the Leven bypass, which was provided for in the budget and for which the council has Government money, how can it go ahead with the other relief road?
One of the problems that I have heard about on the grapevine—there was also a clip in the local paper about it—is that the county council committees are grossly overspending this year's budget. That is terrible; no wonder there has been so much rejoicing in Humberside that that official region will come to an end. The people of South Humberside will join Lincolnshire, according to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and they will get the benefit of the efficient and carefully run Lincolnshire county council, which has a Tory majority. I am afraid that some of the rejoicing is premature, however, because under the present recommendations we on the north bank will still be under the iron heel of Councillor Geraghty. He has already said that he does not intend to take any notice of the Boundary Commission and that he will not change the name of Humberside back to East Yorkshire, which we all want.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the darter left-wing councils are busy talking themselves out of existence? Derby city council, which covers part of my constituency and is Tory-controlled, has said that it wants to be a unitary authority and shot of the county council. South Derbyshire district council, which covers the other part of my constituency and which is Labour-controlled, has also said that it wants to be a unitary authority and shot of the council. The local Labour party has expressed its belief that the county council should be abolished—the Conservatives certainly believe that it should be. The only people in favour of retaining the silly idiots on the county council are the silly idiots themselves.

Mr. Townend: I find that extremely interesting, as we have a similar state of affairs in our part of the world.
We have quite a sensible Labour leader in the city of Hull, Councillor Doyle, lie has taken a pragmatic approach to the abolition of the national dock labour scheme and he has encouraged private investment. Councillor Doyle and the Labour majority on Hull council —this is what happened with the district council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—want to do away with Councillor Geraghty and the idiots on the county council who are an embarrassment to the Labour party.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully, as this issue is part of his Department's responsibilities. Now that we are to get rid of Humberside, we want to scrap all the district and county councils. We want two new unitary authorities in North Humberside.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has been provoked to some extent, but we are talking about bypasses.

Mr. Townend: With respect, if we get the right form of local government, we will make sure that we get our bypass.
We would like a unitary authority in Hull—I have to admit that it would be Labour controlled for time evermore—and we would like another unitary authority based in Beverley covering the area of the old Holderness and East Yorkshire district councils. It would be the new East Yorkshire unitary authority. Our people would have East Yorkshire back and an efficient, Conservative-controlled council.
If my hon. Friend has any leverage that he can use on the county council to make it get on with the bypass, I beg him to use it. If he does so he will be the hero of all the residents of Leven and Brandesburton.

Mr. Cecil Franks: There are few areas of Government involvement at a local level which stir the indigenous population to greater emotion than the perceived or real need for a bypass—such emotions being exceeded only by those aroused when the proposed route is published, when a new set of emotions come into play as part of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome.
Listening to the previous speakers, I was tempted to think—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, obviously thought—that we were about to have a debate on the errors of local government. I could throw myself wholeheartedly into that subject, and I fully appreciate the feelings that have been expressed on the various local issues.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) for giving us the opportunity to debate the Government's bypass programme. I must qualify my initial remarks by making the obvious point that, although bypasses generate an enormous amount of discussion locally and on the Conservative Benches, it is incredible that only one solitary Member is present to represent the Opposition. He arrived halfway through the debate, but I am delighted to see him and give him full marks for staying. It is incredible that not even an Opposition Whip is here to record what is going on in a programme which involves not hundreds of millions but billions of pounds. My hon. Friend the Minister told me earlier that it will provide enough work to keep the Department busy for 20 years or more. That is a measure of the size of the programme.
I shall not come to the rescue of my hon. Friend the Minister because I am sure that he needs no rescuing but, whereas other hon. Members have been projecting the plights within their constituencies, I wish to say a few kind words to my hon. Friend about what is happening in my constituency.
A unique distinction can be drawn between the constituencies of all the other hon. Members who have spoken and my constituency. Every constituency—whether Beverley, South Derbyshire, Harborough, Linlithgow or Bridlington—has a multiplicity of choices of roads going in and out. Trunk roads go north or south into Bridlington, but in the constituency of Barrow and Furness, which is one hour's drive away from the nearest motorway, the M6, only one trunk road goes in and only one goes out, and it is the same one because we have the

sea on three sides. Therefore, the question of a bypass in my constituency, along the route of the A590 meandering its way to the M6, is of prime importance.
The old Dalton-in-Furness urban district council made its first plea for a bypass in 1937. After decades, it looked as though the bypass would finally be built in the mid-1970s. I remind hon. Members that Barrow is one of the three major industrial bases of the north-west—Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow. The shipyards and the engineering complex in Barrow form the largest heavy engineering complex in western Europe. That gives an idea of the volume of heavy traffic that goes up and down the solitary road from the M6 to Barrow. At one point along the A590, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the road literally goes through a farmyard.
At one stage, in the mid-1970s, the Dalton-in-Furness bypass was about to be built. Then, lo and behold, we had a Labour Government and a financial crises. The International Monetary Fund was called in, and out through the window went all the bypasses that had been in the programme for years. Once again Barrow was back where it started and Dalton-in-Furness was back where it started.
I was elected in 1983, so I am one of the class of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and I too remember the kindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). One thing that struck me as obvious when I was elected was that the only way to broaden the economic base was by improved communications. There is no other way to encourage small businesses and industry to locate themselves in a region unless two prime criteria are met. The first is a good local work force, who are reliable and available, and the second is mobility, which good communications bring.
I made it one of my top priorities to try to get the Dalton-in-Furness bypass proposal moving once again. There have been a succession of Ministers. My right hon. Friend the present Minister for Overseas Development came to visit Dalton-in-Furness in 1984. For the benefit of the local and national media, we arranged a photocall in Dalton. Such is the way of the world that, at 3 pm that Friday when all the press and photographers were present, there was not a lorry to be seen for the next 10 minutes. As soon as a lorry came, the photograph was taken and we all left. There was then a half-mile traffic jam at 3.30 pm as the shipyards closed and all hell broke loose. No traffic could move in either direction.
In 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) came to see the proposed bypass and made all the necessary promises. Once again, we arranged for a photograph—this time at 11 am, rather than 3 pm. That visit was followed by one from my hon. Friend the present Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who arrived by train. The chairman of my association and I met him at the railway station just outside Kendal. The chairman and I were astonished that the train was on time. The Minister was not astonished; he was delighted and told me how impressed he was. He was none too pleased when I said that it helped when the train driver knew that a Minister of State from the Department of Transport was on board.
We drove through the farmyard at High Newton, along the A590, at Ulverston and Dalton and eventually arrived at Barrow. Like all his predecessors, the Minister was


convinced of the need for a bypass. I hope that, in the fulness of time, in November, the present occupant of the relevant ministerial post will pay his respects to the town.
I compliment the Minister, who in June announced that the invitation to tender for the road would be made in August and the construction would start in November. We have had the line of route and the public inquiry and we are now at the stage when building can commence. To pick up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, I am also extremely apprehensive at the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston-uponHall, East (Mr. Prescott). If for no other reason than the Dalton bypass, the general election should be postponed until after November. I have checked with the hon. Gentleman and received no answer except the reaffirmation that if there is an election and a Labour Government came to power, there will be an immediate moratorium on bypasses. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of that.
Bypasses do not happen overnight, but take years and years. First, a bypass must be in a programme, then a line of route is published, then there is a public inquiry—because there are inevitably objections—eventually the inspector makes his recommendations, the Minister makes an announcement on the preferred line of route and then the invitations to tender are put out. That process does not happen overnight. I do not want to see happen in my constituency or in any other Member's constituency—irrespective of party—what happened in my constituency and so many other hon. Members' constituencies in 1976.

Mr. John Townend: Why does my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made that statement? Was it an indication that the Labour party is anti-car and anti-car-owner?

Mr. Franks: Labour has a kind of love-hate relationship with the public. It is producer-oriented rather than consumer-oriented, and it is in thrall to the unions. The motorist does not have a union, unless it be the Automobile Association and he is not a member of a group representing his interests which contributes money to Labour party funds. Therefore, that party is much minded to abolish private transport and to encourage everyone to use public transport instead. There is a place in any sensible society for both.
The number of motorists is growing simply because people want independence and to be able to travel to whichever destination they choose—in their own time, at their own pace, and at their own convenience. They would prefer to do that rather than to wait for trains that never arrive—or which do arrive, but two hours late.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister and thank him, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough for including the Dalton-in-Furness bypass as one of his Department's demonstration projects. Dalton-in-Furness and the borough of Barrow will greatly welcome it. When my hon. Friend winds up, perhaps he will elaborate on the funding that is available for the schemes that project teams recommend. I understand that they operate on a 50–50 partnership basis with the local authority. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such funds are available, and say whether they are available to a local authority to match funds from the Department of Transport?
I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister. My constituents are extremely grateful that construction is

about to commence on the bypass for which they have waited for 54 years. I hope that the 55th year will see its opening. I hope also that my hon. Friend the Minister will follow his illustrious predecessors and come to see the little town of Dalton and cut the first sod of the bypass.

Sir Anthony Durant: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on his Adjournment debate. It has ranged around the country and to the north of England, and I will speak for the south.
Reading's problem is that an important river—the River Thames—runs through the centre of the town, which presents a major traffic problem. Reading badly needs a third bridge because, despite its two existing bridges, it suffers major traffic congestion. Reading has to reach agreement with Berkshire and Oxfordshire on a line for the bridge, and that process has been under way ever since I first entered the House 17 years ago. My problems with that bridge—like those of my hon. Friends—go on and on.
We have at last succeeded in making some progress, with the A329M extension, which runs off the M4 into Reading. The Speyhawk construction company has built a tunnel under the Great Western railway into the estate, which runs right alongside the river. The problem of going over or under the railway has in that way been solved, with a route close to the river bank.
We have a developer who is prepared to pay for the construction of a bridge. Not many people are prepared to do such a thing. The bridge would cross the river right at the end of the A329M extension, but the problem is that its other end would be in Oxfordshire—and Oxfordshire does not want it. It has decided that the Oxfordshire county is a rural county, and should remain so. The county is terrified that any further encroachment by a bridge, road, or anything else will bring fresh development.
Eventually, the Department will have to arbitrate in the battle between Oxfordshire and Berkshire, or there will never be agreement about the location of the bridge. A developer is prepared to build the bridge and there are roads going to it and on the other side. The proposal is for the east of Reading but there have been proposals for a bridge on the west. There will be no agreement between the councils until the Government say that the traffic situation is so bad that a line will have to be decided. After that, there will be public inquiries and so on, and the bridge might be built.
The little village of Sonning has a bridge that was built hundreds of years ago and traffic rumbles through the village day and night on a single lane with traffic lights. If the bridge were built, it would relieve that village of enormous pressure. I ask the Government to see if there is some way in which they can intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) spoke about having meetings with Ministers and seeing photographs. I have had meetings and many promises, but I have never seen photographs or had any news from the meetings. The Department should consider a third bridge to relieve Reading's heavy traffic.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on initiating a debate on such an interesting and


useful subject. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), because I know well the road that he mentioned. My hon. Friend has done an excellent job of lobbying for improvements which I am sure will benefit his constituents. The engineering centre of Vickers is one of the largest such complexes in Europe; I am sure that the industrial benefits of the road will be great and that it will also improve the daily lives of my hon. Friend's constituents.
The debate is an opportunity for me to remind the Minister of the need for a northern relief road in my constituency. His predecessors have been acquainted with that need. His immediate predecessor recently visited Bolton, was presented with a petition, and was able to see the line of the road and the great need for it. The predecessor of that Minister met a delegation from Bolton, when Councillor John Walsh and I came to see him to press upon him the need for the road.
The proposed road has a long history, going back to 1947 when Turton council prepared plans for the line of this northern relief road, which was much needed even then. Turton's successor, Bolton council, surveyed the route, and the Conservative-controlled council acquired the necessary land, cleared houses and was ready to build the bypass. Unfortunately, in 1980, control of the council passed to Labour, and at that time Greater Manchester council, which was also Labour-controlled and was ultimately responsible for the building of the road, turned down the plans. Later, when the Labour-controlled Bolton council acquired authority for roads from the GMC, it again turned down the plan.
There is stalemate. The land has been acquired for the road, but the council will not construct it. I do not know why it should adopt that attitude, because the need is greater now than when the road was first planned in 1947. Millions of transport supplementary grant are being spent on junction improvements on the Crompton way bypass which crosses the line of the two roads which need relief —the A666 Blackburn road and the Tonge Moor road. I hope that those improvements will alleviate congestion, but they are not the solution that people want.
The relief road is very much needed because of the effect on the quality of life in Blackburn road and Tonge Moor road, where there is very heavy traffic. It is like a wall of steel dividing the communities. In crossing that road, I know that one dices with death. Children have been run down, and adults injured, if not killed. A French articulated lorry ran over one of my constituents who was in his car, but he was unable to obtain any compensation. A great deal of suffering has resulted from the decision not to build the northern relief road.
I hope that my hon. Friend will visit my constituency, as his predecessor did, and see the line of the road. We could walk along it together. To go through the valley where the road is planned would make a very pleasant walk. I could show my hon. Friend how much the relief road would improve the quality of life for my constituents. It would also reduce congestion, which costs so much money. The chamber of commerce is in favour of the northern relief road. Constituents have complained about how long it takes them to get to hospital and also about how long it takes doctors and emergency services to get through, due to the congestion on the roads.
The relief road has been needed for a very long time. The Labour council is more interested in the Labour areas of the town than in what they look upon as the northern Conservative dormitories. The relief road would improve the quality of life of people in the inner part of the city as well as the quality of life of those who live in the outer parts, who so much need the new road. I hope that my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to visit my constituency and see the line of the new road for himself. I hope that he will also encourage the council to put in bids for the necessary grants, which I trust would be available, so that the council could build this very much needed road.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on securing, at a very civilised hour, this timely debate, and for his excellent speech initiating a spirited discussion. My hon. Friend referred to what those who heard him will think of as an almost incredible story of perverse and vindictive behaviour by the Humberside county council—motivated, I understand, by the political pique of some of the socialist county councillors. What is going on in Humberside will probably be known to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I hope that, in due course, he will comment upon this saga and reply to the criticisms that have been made during the debate of the socialist programme for roads.
When my hon. Friend came to see me last autumn to discuss the case for the Leven and Brandesburton bypass, he brought with him, as he said in his speech, some photographs, together with some of the people who are directly affected. That evidence, coupled with other evidence, was very impressive. My hon. Friend referred to the evidence produced by Humberside county council in support of the bypass scheme and to the improvements to the environment that would result from it. My hon. Friend said that it would lead to major accident savings—a precise quote from the case put by the Humberside county council.
It is therefore extraordinary that the county council should now be at the threshold–perhaps it has already gone beyond it—of saying that it does not intend to pursue the scheme any further. As a result of the debate, I hope that the county council will have been shamed into including the Leven and Brandesburton bypass once again in its programme. It has the money for it; all it needs is the political will to implement it. If I may expand on why the county council has the money, when the scheme was accepted—in competition with many other schemes throughout the country—for transport supplementary grant in the current year, the Government said that they would be able to pay 50 per cent. in transport supplementary grant, and that the other 50 per cent. would effectively be provided by the national taxpayer, at no expense to the local charge payer. That is an important point.
Humberside county councillors are suggesting that going ahead with the bypass would impose an additional burden on Humberside charge payers. I assure the House that that is not so. In effect, the bypass would be 100 per cent. funded by taxpayers, because of the detailed way in


which we apply resources—half in the form of transport supplementary grant and half in the form of annual capital guideline cover. The extra annual—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Chope: Annual capital guideline cover means that a council gets extra credit approval, which increases the authority's standard spending assessment above what it would otherwise be. That results in the authority getting more revenue support grant to cover the interest on and repayment of the capital. Anyone who suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley that the cost of the bypass would increase the burden on Humberside charge payers was totally wrong.

Mrs. Currie: We are all sitting here with our ears flapping. Do my hon. Friend's comments apply to other bypasses, or do these extraordinary circumstances apply only to Beverley?

Mr. Chope: This principle applies to all the schemes that are included when we make our announcement on TSG. This year, that included an addition of 17 per cent. in the sums being made available. This is not the only time that a socialist local authority has tried to misinterpret the rules and to imply that, because it has different political priorities, it will take its feelings out on part of the area and deprive it of a bypass which would otherwise be available.
My hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked what could be done and whether it was too late for Humberside to change its attitude. Because the council said that it no longer wanted to proceed with the bypass, they wanted to know if the money would not be available and if it could not be restored.
If Humberside county council quickly relents, the scheme can be brought back into the programme. The money is available this year, and it will continue to be available unless the county council tells the Department of Transport that it no longer wishes to proceed with the scheme. If the council no longer wishes to proceed or if it is slow in doing so, a process called "denaming" takes place, whereby the resources that were available for that scheme become available for another scheme. I hope that Humberside county councillors will not be so petty as to deprive their citizens of the benefit of the public expenditure which, because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley, is directed towards this much-needed bypass.
Many other subjects were covered in the debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) drew attention to the addition of Skeffington to the road programme, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced today, and to the inclusion of the A6 Market Harborough bypass in the demonstration project—one of six schemes in that project.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) asked for more detail on the bypass demonstration project. Reference was first made to it last year in the environment White Paper as a means of maximising the environmental benefit flowing from the large bypass programme which the Government brought about. The essence of the project is to introduce traffic calming and to conduct a study of circumstances

before and after work to ascertain the best way of ensuring that maximum benefits, in terms of quality of life and the environment, go to the people who use the town or village that is bypassed.
I can understand that hon. Members who do not follow the modern jargon used by roads traffic engineers would not be familiar with the expression "traffic calming". It means the introduction of road humps, road narrowing, additional pedestrian crossings and engineering measures designed to reduce the speed of traffic, to enhance safety of pedestrians and cyclists and to discourage fast through traffic from using that area.
We invited tenders for the by-pass demonstration project from all local authorities and we received many bids. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the six winners today. The towns that are to be bypassed have in common the need to maximise the benefits of the bypass once it is complete, and I am sure that that will be facilitated with the assistance of local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness asked exactly how much money would be available, and he referred to 50 per cent. being the norm. We have not yet decided the precise amount. It will depend on one scheme being compared with another, and no individual scheme will receive a specified amount of help from the Government. We hope that we shall receive support from the Civic Trust. Most of the central funding will go towards the cost of analysing the potential benefits of the project, and the local authorities that have agreed to participate have agreed to provide some of the funds for the engineering measures, but let us not forget that the principal cost of any bypass is borne by the national taxpayer through the national roads programme.

Mr. Franks: On the Minister's comments on traffic calming, a most unusual phrase about which some of us are now a little wiser, are there procedures in legislation whereby the Government can prohibit lorries from using the old road when a bypass has been constructed, or is that a matter for local authorities rather than the Government to determine?

Mr. Chope: If my hon. Friend is referring to the time during construction, it is possible for temporary traffic regulation orders to be made. For example, we are considering that at the moment on a scheme in east London, but it is a matter for local authorities to take in hand.

Mr. Franks: I was talking about the period after the bypass has been built specifically to take heavy traffic away from the town. Can the purpose of the bypass be enhanced or enforced by the prohibition of heavy traffic along the old road?

Mr. Chope: Yes, the answer to that question is also affirmative. When the bypass is complete, traffic regulation orders can be made to prohibit vehicles of a particular weight or size from using that road unless they need to do so to gain access to a premises along it. That will force them to use the bypass that has been provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough raised the important issue of the gap between the A1 and the Theddingworth bypass in Leicestershire, on which, he says, Leicestershire county council has neglected to act for about 25 years. I am afraid that I can do little more than


offer sympathy, because it is a local road scheme and not one for which the Department is responsible. I hope that my hon. Friend will be successful in persuading the county council of the need to include it in its programme. He says that there is a possibility of its starting in 1992, so perhaps that is a sign of his success in bringing pressure to bear on the issue over the years. I wish him well on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred to the importance of bypass construction in her constituency and sought an assurance that the Stoke-Derby link road programme would not slip. It is always difficult, especially for a Transport Minister, to guarantee that a road programme will not slip. However, I accept my hon. Friend's pressure about the fact that she does not wish that programme to slip, and I will write to her with more details about that and other issues that she raised.
One of the most interesting parts of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was the reference to the Opposition parties' policies—or lack of them—in relation to road building. She referred to the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in Edinburgh in April. She said that she had written to him as a result of it, asking what the implications might be for road investment in her constituency. I have also written to the hon. Gentleman and I have yet to receive a reply. I am sure that it is not because he has overlooked the matter and that a reply will come in due course. I asked him which of the 53 new schemes that the Government are introducing into their national road programme this year he would wish to stop. I hope that we shall receive a reply in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South also referred, in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, to Liberal Democrat policy on road investment. I confirm to the House that it very much depends on which audience is being addressed. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) when speaking to a rally of cyclists in London, as I heard him the other day, suggested that no more money needed to be spent on national roads other than perhaps to deal with some of the potholes. He said that the Liberal Democrates were not in favour of expanding the roads programme and, indeed, would be in favour of reducing it.
However, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has lobbied persistently and successfully for a widening of the bypass round Ilminster so that it can become a dual carriageway. I hope that I shall not get too much criticism from my hon. Friend when I tell the House that the Government announced today that the right hon. Gentleman's pleas for his own constituents had been acceded to and that the Ilminster bypass dualling is now included in the roads programme. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now adopt a slightly different attitude on whether he wishes the roads programme to be expanded or contracted. We wait to find out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness also referred to the attitude of the Labour party on these issues. The views of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East largely depend on which audience he is addressing. If he is addressing a group of railwaymen, he argues that all the investment needs to be put into the railways. If he is addressing a group of lorry drivers, he

says how important it is that there should be continued investment in the roads because lorry drivers have an important job. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness for exploiting the inconsistencies in the policies of Opposition parties.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) doubtless has many shortcomings, as do we all, but in my experience one thing that he does not do is tell audiences what they want to hear.

Mr. Chope: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the most effective defence that could be brought in the circumstances. We shall now follow the speeches of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East with even greater interest to see whether the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are borne out in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred, in a typically persuasive contribution, to the problem of the third river crossing which almost everyone in Reading wishes to see, but which nobody in Oxfordshire seems to wish to see. He asked the Department of Transport to arbitrate in the matter. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has visited one place nearby and that he has received representations on the issue, as I have. There is certainly the will to resolve the problem. However, we have not yet found a way to do that because the powers of the Department of Transport are not that extensive. We will continue to explore all possibilities because the traffic problems of Reading will not be resolved until that issue is properly and successfully addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) kindly invited me to visit his constituency. I should be happy to do that at some stage in the future, perhaps when the road problems to which he referred have been resolved to the extent that I can turn the first sod. I look forward to visiting Barrow-in-Furness in November to carry out such a duty with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness.
I waited till the end before referring to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, because I knew that he would be patient, as always. He referred to the need for additional road infrastructure investment in Scotland for roads and road junctions that he uses, although I am not sure whether they are in his constituency. He said that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was dealing with his representations because he is the Minister responsible for roads in Scotland. I cannot go into the details, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will consider the points that have been raised in this debate.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a grey area. All I ask is that, the next time the Secretary of State for Transport is locked in a traffic jam between his home in his constituency and Edinburgh airport and is desperate to get to a Cabinet sub-committee meeting, he at least thinks of my contribution today and wonders what can be done to alleviate the problem. Seriously, I ask the Minister to bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, who knows from first-hand experience exactly what the problem is. Someone will have to do something about it.

Mr. Chope: I will certainly do that, in the knowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport supports the principle that we need further investment in road infrastructure.
I was sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Linlithgow about the terrible accident on the A1. I do not know whether further investment in the road would have prevented the acccident. However, sadly, almost all the people who were killed in the accident were unseated in the back of the van. That is a matter of considerable concern, and the Department of Transport is considering the implications of the accident. If someone is seated and belted in a vehicle, that person is more likely to survive an accident.
The Government are committed to continuing investment in the roads programme and in the bypass programme in particular. We have made substantial investment over the past 10 or 12 years in national and local bypasses. Today has been a particularly good clay for those of us who believe in such investment. We have added

15 new bypasses to the national programme at a cost of £85 million, and we have announced the first six towns for the bypass demonstration project.
We have heard the case for even more investment in roads. By investing in roads, we can improve the environment and road safety and make a valuable contribution to improving the economy. That is why the Conservative party, alone among political parties, continues unashamedly to claim that we must continue to invest as much as we can afford in road infrastructure—not at the expense of investing in other forms of transportation, but as a complement to such investment. Only through long-term capital investment in transport can we improve our quality of life.
It is not too late for Humberside county council to change its attitude. If there is no other consequence of this debate, I hope that the county council and its leader will be shamed into restoring that much-needed Leven bypass scheme so that work can start on it this year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o'clock.